12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
J & J TIMBER CO. v. Broomegreen2 sentences2023Four days before trial, this Court handed down an opinion, that overruled previous precedent and held that “[w]here a party’s suit against an employer is based on respondeat superior, the vicarious liability claim itself is extinguished when the solely negligent employee is released.” J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So. 2d 1, 6 (Miss. 2006). 2020See J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So. 2d 1, 6 (¶21) (Miss. 2006) (“Where a party’s suit against an employer is based on respondeat superior, the vicarious liability claim itself is extinguished when the solely negligent employee is released.”). 16 see Miss. | 4 | 8 |
Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. State ex rel. Gillespiegreen2 sentences2009However, Wisconsin Lumber is authority for the legal proposition that the “validity and obligation” of any contract cannot be “impaired by any” Mississippi court decision “altering the construction of the law.” Wisconsin Lumber, 54 So. at 249-50 (citations omitted). 2006However, Wisconsin Lumber is authority for the legal proposition that the “validity and obligation” of any contract cannot be “impaired by any” Mississippi court decision “altering the construction of the law.” Wisconsin Lumber, 54 So. at 249-50 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Granquist v. Crystal Springs Lumber Co.green2 sentences2008The plaintiff thus would end up paying her own judgment, thereby creating the `circle of indemnity.' Therefore, if a settlement agreement does not specifically state that it is preserving a claim against another defendant for vicarious liability for the tortfeasor, the result is that the agreement may extinguish claims against the remaining defendant as a matter of law." [5] However, before the circuit court ruled on the motion, this Court handed down J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2006), which disallowed maintaining a vicarious liability claim against an employer if the employ 2008The plaintiff thus would end up paying her own judgment, thereby creating the `circle of indemnity.' Therefore, if a settlement agreement does not specifically state that it is preserving a claim against another defendant for vicarious liability for the tortfeasor, the result is that the agreement may extinguish claims against the remaining defendant as a matter of law." [5] However, before the circuit court ruled on the motion, this Court handed down J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2006), which disallowed maintaining a vicarious liability claim against an employer if the employ | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
WJ Runyon & Son, Inc. v. Davis
green
2 sentences2006Contrary to this Court's assertion in Runyon, 605 So.2d at 43 , eliminating the circuity of action that arises from an injured party's vicarious liability claim against an employer when the negligent employee has been released actually encourages settlement and promotes finality in actions. 2004Contrary to this Court’s assertion in Runyon, 605 So.2d at 43 , eliminating the circuity of action that arises from an injured party’s vicarious liability claim against an employer when the negligent employee has been released actually encourages settlement and promotes finality in actions. | 4 | 2004–2008 |
Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008The plaintiff thus would end up paying her own judgment, thereby creating the `circle of indemnity.' Therefore, if a settlement agreement does not specifically state that it is preserving a claim against another defendant for vicarious liability for the tortfeasor, the result is that the agreement may extinguish claims against the remaining defendant as a matter of law." [5] However, before the circuit court ruled on the motion, this Court handed down J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2006), which disallowed maintaining a vicarious liability claim against an employer if the employ 2006This Court must either affirm the existing settlement agreement with Dr. Bush and acknowledge that the Minor’s 5 However, before the circuit court ruled on the motion, this Court handed down J&J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2006), which disallowed maintaining a vicarious liability claim against an employer if the employee has been released. 6 See Granquist v. Crystal Springs Lumber Co., 190 Miss. 572 , 1 So. 2d 216, 218 (1941); Richardson v. APAC-Mississippi, Inc, 631 So. 2d 143 (Miss. 1994); and W.J. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison
green
1 sentence2021Morrison, 905 So. 2d at 1226 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Whitaker v. T & M FOODS, LTD.
green
1 sentence2008Lastly, Dr. Bush further contends that our decision in Whitaker v. T & M Foods, Ltd., No.2006-CA-01365-COA, ___ So.2d ___, 2007 WL 2772001 (Miss.Ct. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.