12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2014But "if a person provokes a difficulty, arming himself in advance, and intending, if necessaty, to use his weapon and overcome his adversary, he becomes the aggressor and deprives himself of the right of self-defense." Id. (emphasis added); see also Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss. 1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)) ("[0]ne who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.”). 2013Though Yolanda was the only witness to the entire exchange and testified Maurice’s insults and initial fight with Davis were unprovoked, our law is clear that “one who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.” Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss.1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)); see also Skinner v. State, 751 So.2d 1060, 1074 (¶ 48) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). ¶ 17. | 6 | 6 |
Cooley v. Stategreen2 sentences2014But "if a person provokes a difficulty, arming himself in advance, and intending, if necessaty, to use his weapon and overcome his adversary, he becomes the aggressor and deprives himself of the right of self-defense." Id. (emphasis added); see also Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss. 1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)) ("[0]ne who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.”). 2013Though Yolanda was the only witness to the entire exchange and testified Maurice’s insults and initial fight with Davis were unprovoked, our law is clear that “one who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.” Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss.1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)); see also Skinner v. State, 751 So.2d 1060, 1074 (¶ 48) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). ¶ 17. | 4 | 5 |
Wood Naval Stores Export Ass'n v. Gulf Naval Stores Co.green2 sentences2007"A party cannot claim benefits under a transaction or instrument and at the same time repudiate its obligations." Wood Naval Stores Export Assn. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 220 Miss. 652, 664 , 71 So.2d 425, 430 (1954). 2007"A party cannot claim benefits under a transaction or instrument and at the same time repudiate its obligations." Wood Naval Stores Export Assn. v. Gulf Naval Stores Co., 220 Miss. 652, 664 , 71 So.2d 425, 430 (1954). | 4 | 4 |
Skinner v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Though Yolanda was the only witness to the entire exchange and testified Maurice’s insults and initial fight with Davis were unprovoked, our law is clear that “one who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.” Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss.1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)); see also Skinner v. State, 751 So.2d 1060, 1074 (¶ 48) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). ¶ 17. 2006See Skinner v. State, 751 So.2d 1060 (¶ 48) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) ("[O]ne who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense." (quoting Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss.1986))). ¶ 40. | 2 | 2 |
Fronkling v. Berrygreen2 sentences1971A party cannot claim benefits under a transaction or instrument and at the same time repudiate its obligations." We note also in Fronkling v. Berry, 125 Miss. 763 , 767, 88 So. 331, 332 (1921), the reaffirmation of that which was stated in Duff v. Snider, 54 Miss. 245 , as follows: "In the notes to the case of Peter v. Compton, in 1 Smith's Lead.Cas. 438, it is said to be universally conceded that no one can receive or enjoy the goods or services of another, and then rely upon the statute of frauds as an excuse for not paying for them, . . . ." We conclude that Hoerner could not accept the ben 1971A party cannot claim benefits under a transaction or instrument and at the same time repudiate its obligations." We note also in Fronkling v. Berry, 125 Miss. 763 , 767, 88 So. 331, 332 (1921), the reaffirmation of that which was stated in Duff v. Snider, 54 Miss. 245 , as follows: "In the notes to the case of Peter v. Compton, in 1 Smith's Lead.Cas. 438, it is said to be universally conceded that no one can receive or enjoy the goods or services of another, and then rely upon the statute of frauds as an excuse for not paying for them, . . . ." We conclude that Hoerner could not accept the ben | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence2014But "if a person provokes a difficulty, arming himself in advance, and intending, if necessaty, to use his weapon and overcome his adversary, he becomes the aggressor and deprives himself of the right of self-defense." Id. (emphasis added); see also Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1354 (Miss. 1986) (citing Cooley v. State, 391 So.2d 614, 617 (Miss.1980)) ("[0]ne who leaves an altercation, arms himself, and returns with the intent to and does use his weapon on the other party cannot claim self-defense.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Duff v. Snider
green
1 sentence1971A party cannot claim benefits under a transaction or instrument and at the same time repudiate its obligations." We note also in Fronkling v. Berry, 125 Miss. 763 , 767, 88 So. 331, 332 (1921), the reaffirmation of that which was stated in Duff v. Snider, 54 Miss. 245 , as follows: "In the notes to the case of Peter v. Compton, in 1 Smith's Lead.Cas. 438, it is said to be universally conceded that no one can receive or enjoy the goods or services of another, and then rely upon the statute of frauds as an excuse for not paying for them, . . . ." We conclude that Hoerner could not accept the ben | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.