11 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Employers Fire Insurance v. Speedgreen2 sentences2013Id. 1970This Court holds that the doctrines of waiver or estoppel are not available to appellees in this case. (242 Miss, at 346, 133 So.2d at 629, 630 ). | 1 | 4 |
WALKER v. City of Biloxigreen2 sentences2000Walker v. City of Biloxi, 229 Miss. 890 , 92 So.2d 227, 229 (1957). 2000Walker v. City of Biloxi, 229 Miss. 890 , 92 So.2d 227, 229 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lockard
green
2 sentences1970Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Lock-ard, 239 Miss. 644 , Í24 So.2d 849, and authorities therein cited. 1963Probably the most significant case in this connection is Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lockard, 239 Miss. 644 , 124 So. 2d 849 . | 4 | 1961–1970 |
Delta Chemical and Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia
green
1 sentence2006As authority, Leary cites this Court's decision in Delta Chemical and Petroleum, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Byhalia, Mississippi, 790 So.2d 862 (Miss.Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Turner v. Wakefield
green
1 sentence1999Turner, 481 So.2d at 849 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Berry v. Hinds County
green
1 sentence1979We must affirm now (except as to Kevin Knight, the park ranger) unless this Court decides to abrogate the doctrines of immunity of public officials and sovereign immunity and overrule our long line of cases up to and including the 1977 case of Berry v. Hinds County, supra . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Adams
green
2 sentences1963An insurance contract, under the guise of waiver, cannot be reformed to create a liability for a condition or employee excluded by the specific terms of the policy. 16 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1943), Sec. 9090; Maryland Casualty Company v. Adams, 159 Miss. 88 , 131 So. 544 (1931); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Lockard, 239 Miss. *326 644, 124 So. 2d 849 ; Employers Fire Insurance Co. v. Speed, 242 Miss. 341 , 133 So. 2d 627 (1961). 1963An insurance contract, under the guise of waiver, cannot be reformed to create a liability for a condition or employee excluded by the specific terms of the policy. 16 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1943), Sec. 9090; Maryland Casualty Company v. Adams, 159 Miss. 88 , 131 So. 544 (1931); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Lockard, 239 Miss. *326 644, 124 So. 2d 849 ; Employers Fire Insurance Co. v. Speed, 242 Miss. 341 , 133 So. 2d 627 (1961). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
FRANK GARDNER HDWE. AND SUPPLY CO. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences1963Co., 148 So.2d 190 , the Court said: "First, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to extend the coverage of an insurance policy or create a primary liability but may only affect rights reserved in it. 1963Co., 148 So. 2d 190 , the Court said: “First, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to extend the coverage of an insurance policy or create a primary liability but may only affect rights reserved in it. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Lumber Underwriters of NY v. Rife
green
2 sentences1960As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, or to supply a failure of proof that a loss was covered by the policy.” The rule thus stated has been applied by the courts under varying circumstances and different factual situations in the following cases: Lumber Underwriters of New York v. Rife, 1915, 237 U. S. 605 , 35 S. Ct. 717 , 59 L. 1960As has sometimes been said, the doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot be successfully invoked to create a primary liability, or a liability for a benefit not contracted for at all, or to supply a failure of proof that a loss was covered by the policy.” The rule thus stated has been applied by the courts under varying circumstances and different factual situations in the following cases: Lumber Underwriters of New York v. Rife, 1915, 237 U. S. 605 , 35 S. Ct. 717 , 59 L. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.