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 1917–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pope v. Schroedergreen2 sentences2002See Pope v. Schroeder , 512 So.2d 905 (Miss. 1987). 1992In Pope v. Schroeder, 512 So.2d 905 (Miss. 1987), this Court held that the ten-day notice requirement is to be strictly enforced and further noted that failure to provide such notice constitutes reversible error: In Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir.1986), the court stated: Importantly, Rule 56(c) prescribes a ten-day notice period prior to the district court's granting a motion for summary judgment; this Court has noted its strict enforcement of this opportunity to be heard. | 2 | 3 |
Western Fire Insurance Company v. Copelandgreen2 sentences1992In Pope v. Schroeder, 512 So.2d 905 (Miss. 1987), this Court held that the ten-day notice requirement is to be strictly enforced and further noted that failure to provide such notice constitutes reversible error: In Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 652 (5th Cir.1986), the court stated: Importantly, Rule 56(c) prescribes a ten-day notice period prior to the district court's granting a motion for summary judgment; this Court has noted its strict enforcement of this opportunity to be heard. 1987In Western Fire Insurance Co. v. Copeland, 786 F.2d 649, 562 (5th Cir.1986), the court stated: *908 Importantly, Rule 56(c) prescribes a ten-day notice period prior to the district court's granting a motion for summary judgment; this Court has noted its strict enforcement of this opportunity to be heard. | 2 | 2 |
Hurst v. Southwest Miss. Legal Services Corp.green1 sentence2005Corp., 610 So.2d 374, 385 (Miss.1992) (overruled as to one particular aspect of its holding not related to Rule 56), declares that the ten day notice requirement for a summary judgment hearing is to be strictly enforced; thus granting a summary judgment motion on less than ten days notice can be reversible error. ¶ 38. | 1 | 1 |
Croke v. Southgate Sewer Dist.green1 sentence2005However, the cases of Croke v. Southgate Sewer Dist., 857 So.2d 774, 778 (¶ 10) (Miss.2003), and Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 831 So.2d 1156, 1163 (¶ 26) (Miss.2002), declare that the error in granting a summary judgment motion without a hearing may be harmless error if there are, indeed, no triable issues of fact. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc.green1 sentence2005However, the cases of Croke v. Southgate Sewer Dist., 857 So.2d 774, 778 (¶ 10) (Miss.2003), and Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 831 So.2d 1156, 1163 (¶ 26) (Miss.2002), declare that the error in granting a summary judgment motion without a hearing may be harmless error if there are, indeed, no triable issues of fact. | 1 | 1 |
Jack R. Hanson v. Polk County Land, Inc.green1 sentence1992Hanson v. Polk County Land, Inc., 608 F.2d 129, 131 (5th Cir.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walton v. Bourgeois
green
2 sentences2010While this Court said in Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So.2d 698 (Miss.1987), that it is not mandatory to require a ten-day notice of the hearing when a Rule 12 motion is converted, we have more recently held that: before this Court can determine on appellate review if the non-moving party has had a reasonable time in which to file documentation in opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that has been converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, we must determine if the non-moving party has been afforded ten days[’] notice of the court’s intention to conduct a summary[-]judgment hearing on a da 2009While this Court said in Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So.2d 698 (Miss.1987), that it is not mandatory to require a ten-day notice of the hearing when a Rule 12 motion is converted, we have more recently held that: before this Court can determine on appellate review if the non-moving party has had a reasonable time in which to file documentation in opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that has been converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, we must determine if the non-moving party has been afforded ten daysf] notice of the court’s intention to conduct a summary judgment hearing on a date | 3 | 2007–2010 |
Hall v. State
green
1 sentence2016In striking down this statute, we found that “trials are the core activity of the judiciary, so the promulgation of rules for the regulation of trials lie[s] at the core of the judicial power.” Id. at 1346 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sherrod v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co.
green
1 sentence2002But where ruling is withheld pending completion of discovery, violation of the time requirement of Rule 56(c) will often, as here, be harmless." Id. at 645 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
National SEC. Fire & Cas. Co. v. MID-STATE
green
1 sentence1983Id. at 1354 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
New Orleans & N. E. R. v. Wood
neutral
2 sentences1917Co. v. Wood, 112 Miss. 614 , 73 So. 615 , where the facts with reference to the waiver are very similar to the facts in the case before us now, this court held that this state of facts constituted a waiver of the ten-day notice clause by the carrier. 1917Co. v. Wood, 112 Miss. 614 , 73 So. 615 , where the facts with reference to the waiver are very similar to the facts in the case before us now, this court held that this state of facts constituted a waiver of the ten-day notice clause by the carrier. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.