Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1939–1994 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. Bruntgreen2 sentences1975See Berry v. Brunt, 252 Miss. 194 , 172 So.2d 398 (1965), and the numerous cases therein cited to the same effect. *801 In reviewing the evidence in its best light for the plaintiff the proof amounts to no more than a scintilla that the plaintiff's illness was caused by the potted meat and is insufficient, therefore, to support the verdict of the jury. 1974A mere scintilla of evidence of negligence is insufficient to make a jury issue. *661 The scintilla rule of evidence is not recognized in this State... . ( 172 So.2d at 400-402 ). | 3 | 6 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown Oil Tools, Inc. v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences1967Brown Oil Tools, Inc. v. Schmidt, 246 Miss. 238 , 148 So.2d 685 (1963); Illinois Central R. 1967Brown Oil Tools, Inc. v. Schmidt, 246 Miss. 238 , 148 So.2d 685 (1963); Illinois Central R. | 2 | 1965–1967 |
Hollie v. Sunflower Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1967Hollie v. Sunflower Stores, Inc., 194 So.2d 217 (Miss.1967), citing Berry v. Brunt, 252 Miss. 194, 203 , 172 So.2d 398, 402 (1965). 1967Berry v. Brunt, 252 Miss. 194 , 172 So.2d 398 (1965); Hollie v. Sunflower Stores, Inc., 194 So.2d 217 (Miss.1967). | 2 | 1967–1967 |
Rena v. Wells
neutral
2 sentences1954The peremptory instruction was properly refused, on the specific authority of Rena v. Wells, 175 Miss. 458 , 167 So. 620 .” And Avhat we said in that case is applicable here. 1954The peremptory instruction was properly refused, on the specific authority of Rena v. Wells, 175 Miss. 458 , 167 So. 620 .” And Avhat we said in that case is applicable here. | 2 | 1940–1954 |
Lankford v. Iwong
green
2 sentences1994Triplett also cites an Alabama case, Lankford v. Mong, 283 Ala. 24 , 214 So.2d 301 (1968), in which the Alabama court, applying the scintilla rule, determined that the question as to whether or not the driver had acted with willful or wanton negligence should go to the jury. 1994Triplett also cites an Alabama case, Lankford v. Mong, 283 Ala. 24 , 214 So.2d 301 (1968), in which the Alabama court, applying the scintilla rule, determined that the question as to whether or not the driver had acted with willful or wanton negligence should go to the jury. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
John Morrell & Company v. Shultz
green
1 sentence1972The scintilla rule of evidence is not recognized within this state. ( 208 So.2d at 907 .) We further find that it was a jury question whether David Cotten and Ste-phania Johnson were guilty of any negligence contributing to appellant’s injuries. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Fortenberry v. Herrington
green
2 sentences1954We said in Fortenberry v. Herrington, 188 Miss. 735 , 196 So. 232 : “It is true that no one of these actions, by itself, would be held to establish his mental incapacity, at the time he executed the will; but taken as a Avhole, Ave are of the opinion that although intrinsically weak, there was enough to avoid the scintilla rule, which is held out to be sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to his mental capacity. 1954We said in Fortenberry v. Herrington, 188 Miss. 735 , 196 So. 232 : “It is true that no one of these actions, by itself, would be held to establish his mental incapacity, at the time he executed the will; but taken as a Avhole, Ave are of the opinion that although intrinsically weak, there was enough to avoid the scintilla rule, which is held out to be sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to his mental capacity. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Wooten v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1939The attitude of our jurisprudence has been so far away from any such a conception of the scintilla rule that in at least three opinions of this court, Wooten v. Mobile Railroad Co., 89 Miss. 322 , 42 So. 131 , Clark v. J. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.