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.
12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fulgham v. Snellgreen2 sentences2001In Fulgham , the Court used the following questions to determine the connection of the claim to the counterclaim: (1) Whether the same evidence or witnesses are relevant to both claims; (2) Whether the issues of law and fact in the counterclaim are largely the same as those in the plaintiff's claim; (3) Whether, if the counterclaim were asserted in a later lawsuit, it would be barred by res judicata; (4) Whether or not both claims are based on a "common nucleus of operative fact"? 548 So.2d at 1322 -23 (citing Robertson, Joinder of Claims and PartiesRule 13, 14, 17, and 18; 52 Miss. 1999In Fulgham, the Court used the following questions to determine the connection of the claim to the counterclaim: (1) Whether the same evidence or witnesses are relevant to both claims; (2) Whether the issues of law and fact in the counterclaim are largely the same as those in the plaintiff's claim; (3) Whether, if the counterclaim were asserted in a later lawsuit, it would be barred by res judicata; (4) Whether or not both claims are based on a "common nucleus of operative fact"? 548 So.2d at 1322 -23 (citing Robertson, Joinder of Claims and Parties - Rule 13, 14, 17, and 18; 52 Miss. | 3 | 5 |
Bonser v. Shainholtzgreen2 sentences2008Rather than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals [4] sought "enlightenment" by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the "connections" or "substantial connections" test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions. [5] "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a `sufficient degree of `connection' with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Id. at 2007Most jurisdictions apply what has become characterized as a "connections test" or a "substantial connections test." "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has `a sufficient degree of "connection" with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Bonser v. Shainholtz, 3 P.3d 422, 425 (Colo.2000) (quoting Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111, 115 (Ala. 1986)). ¶ 26. | 3 | 3 |
Otwell v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2008Rather than apply the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Appeals [4] sought "enlightenment" by turning to twelve other jurisdictions for an answer to the precise question it had already answered only nine years earlier, and then rejected the "connections" or "substantial connections" test established by ten of the twelve jurisdictions. [5] "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has a `sufficient degree of `connection' with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Id. at 2007Most jurisdictions apply what has become characterized as a "connections test" or a "substantial connections test." "The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has `a sufficient degree of "connection" with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.'" Bonser v. Shainholtz, 3 P.3d 422, 425 (Colo.2000) (quoting Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111, 115 (Ala. 1986)). ¶ 26. | 3 | 3 |
Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, PA v. MERKEL & COCKE, PAgreen2 sentences2005Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, P.A. v. Merkel & Cocke, P.A., 804 So.2d 1000, 1004 (¶ 5) (Miss.2001) (citing Fulgham v. Snell, 548 So.2d 1320, 1322-23 (Miss.1989) (citing Robertson, Joinder of Claims and Parties-Rule 13, 14, 17, and 18, 52 Miss. 2001Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman & Dent, P.A. v. Merkel & Cocke, P.A., 804 So.2d 1000, 1004 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2001) (citing Fulgham v. Snell, 548 So.2d 1320, 1322-23 (Miss. 1989) (citing Robertson, Joinder of Claims and Parties-- Rule 13, 14, 17, and 18, 52 Miss. | 3 | 3 |
Mendoza v. Varongreen1 sentence2007In Mendoza v. Varon, 563 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Tex.Civ.App.1978), a medical *932 malpractice case, a plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence that the defendant and his expert were insured by the same insurance company. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai
green
2 sentences1999The second standard in Chandris was further explained in Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai 520 U.S. 548 , 117 S.Ct. 1535 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997): For the substantial connection requirement to serve its purpose, the inquiry into the nature of the employee’s connection to the vessel must concentrate on whether the employee’s duties take him to sea. 1999The second standard in Chandris was further explained in Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai 520 U.S. 548 , 117 S.Ct. 1535 , 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997): For the substantial connection requirement to serve its purpose, the inquiry into the nature of the employee’s connection to the vessel must concentrate on whether the employee’s duties take him to sea. | 3 | 1996–1999 |
White v. Town of Drew
neutral
1 sentence1956In this connection we were in error in saying in the case of White v. Town of Drew, 214 Miss. *765 147, 58 So. 2d 372 , where the proceeding was initiated by the Town of Drew, that the burden of proof was on the objectors. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.