11 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1868–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences1998In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 [4] and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand `for good cause shown'." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule... ." Id. 1997In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand for good cause shown." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule...." Id. | 4 | 4 |
Blue v. Stategreen2 sentences2022In addition, the Supreme Court has stated that Rule 3.07’s “six-instruction limit is a 19 numerical beginning point[,] not an inflexible rule.” Blue v. State, 716 So. 2d 567, 573 (¶25) (Miss. 1998) (quotation marks and ellipses omitted). “[T]he number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand ‘for good cause shown.’” Id. (other quotation marks omitted) (quoting UCRCCC 3.07). 2022In addition, the Supreme Court has stated that Rule 3.07’s “six-instruction limit is a 19 numerical beginning point[,] not an inflexible rule.” Blue v. State, 716 So. 2d 567, 573 (¶25) (Miss. 1998) (quotation marks and ellipses omitted). “[T]he number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand ‘for good cause shown.’” Id. (other quotation marks omitted) (quoting UCRCCC 3.07). | 1 | 1 |
Dean v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1997The following is Judge Lee's reasonable interpretation of these principles: Furthermore, although the decedent's children argue that even if Gretchen is technically entitled to receive the benefits, she should nevertheless be estopped from collecting them, there is no question under the authorities cited but that Gretchen is entitled to collect her fifty-percent share of the proceeds,(1) since the language and intent of FEGLI create "an inflexible rule that the beneficiary designated in accordance with the statute . . . receive[s] the policy proceeds, regardless of other document or the equiti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yang v. California
green
2 sentences1998In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 [4] and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand `for good cause shown'." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule... ." Id. 1997In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand for good cause shown." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule...." Id. | 3 | 1996–1998 |
Noe v. Neaves
green
2 sentences1998In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 [4] and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand `for good cause shown'." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule... ." Id. 1998In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 [4] and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand `for good cause shown'." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule... ." Id. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Anderson v. United States
green
2 sentences1998In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 [4] and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand `for good cause shown'." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule... ." Id. 1997In Young v. State, 451 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 860 , 105 S.Ct. 192 , 83 L.Ed.2d 125 (1984), this Court addressed the six-instruction limit contained in Rule 5.03 and held that the number of instructions submitted to the court and the jury "lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge who may limit or expand for good cause shown." There, we held that the six-instruction limit is a "numerical beginning point ... [not] an inflexible rule...." Id. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Wells v. State
green
1 sentence1999In Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497 (Miss.1997), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed a "technical deviation" from the Agee rule on the required preliminary hearing: The purpose of the Agee rule is to protect defendants from the admission into evidence of confessions which were not voluntary. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Henley v. State
neutral
2 sentences1952In Warren v. State, 174 Miss. 63 , 164 So. 234, 235 , it was said that “the proper practice in jury trials is that the judge shall rule positively one way or the other when the evidence is offered and the objection thereto is made. ’ ’ But it was also there said that £ £ this, however, is not to be laid down as an inflexible rule, there being several appropriate circumstances for its reasonable relaxation. ’ ’ In Henley v. State, 202 Miss. 37 , 30 So. (2d) 423 , the introduction of a large stick in evidence, in the absence of a showing that such stick was used in the assault, was held to be re 1952In Warren v. State, 174 Miss. 63 , 164 So. 234, 235 , it was said that “the proper practice in jury trials is that the judge shall rule positively one way or the other when the evidence is offered and the objection thereto is made. ’ ’ But it was also there said that £ £ this, however, is not to be laid down as an inflexible rule, there being several appropriate circumstances for its reasonable relaxation. ’ ’ In Henley v. State, 202 Miss. 37 , 30 So. (2d) 423 , the introduction of a large stick in evidence, in the absence of a showing that such stick was used in the assault, was held to be re | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Warren v. State
green
2 sentences1952In Warren v. State, 174 Miss. 63 , 164 So. 234, 235 , it was said that “the proper practice in jury trials is that the judge shall rule positively one way or the other when the evidence is offered and the objection thereto is made. ’ ’ But it was also there said that £ £ this, however, is not to be laid down as an inflexible rule, there being several appropriate circumstances for its reasonable relaxation. ’ ’ In Henley v. State, 202 Miss. 37 , 30 So. (2d) 423 , the introduction of a large stick in evidence, in the absence of a showing that such stick was used in the assault, was held to be re 1952In Warren v. State, 174 Miss. 63 , 164 So. 234, 235 , it was said that “the proper practice in jury trials is that the judge shall rule positively one way or the other when the evidence is offered and the objection thereto is made. ’ ’ But it was also there said that £ £ this, however, is not to be laid down as an inflexible rule, there being several appropriate circumstances for its reasonable relaxation. ’ ’ In Henley v. State, 202 Miss. 37 , 30 So. (2d) 423 , the introduction of a large stick in evidence, in the absence of a showing that such stick was used in the assault, was held to be re | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Ricketts v. Jolliff
neutral
1 sentence1928If, however, he has realized a. substantial benefit, to that extent should he or his estate make restitution.” In Ricketts et al. v. Jolliff, 62 Miss. 440 , the court announced the following rule: “Restitution of the consideration received by the insane person is not a condition precedent to the rescission of such contract or conveyance, if it has been wasted or has passed beyond his control.” The court said, on page 449: “To require, as an inflexible rule in such case, that the parties shall be placed in stat-u quo, would be but little better than the long since exiDloded doctrine, which at f | 1 | 1928–1928 |
McGowan v. McGowan
green
1 sentence1901In making the sale the trustee ‘£ cannot bring others into his confidence, by reason whereof a private sale is made to them on the secret understanding that he is to take an interest or benefit. ’ ’ McGowan v. McGowan, 48 Miss., 553 . | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Barlow v. Todd
neutral
1 sentence1868Mills v. Dennis, 3 Johns. | 1 | 1868–1868 |
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.