11 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1912–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garrisgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458 , 863 S.W.2d 794, 798 (1993); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Iowa 1990); State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277, 282 (La. 1994See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 863 S.W. 2d 794, 798 (Ark. 1993); State v. Murphy, 451N.W. 2d 154, 157 (Iowa 1990); State v. Garris, 603 So. 2d 277, 282 (La. | 2 | 2 |
Whitson v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458 , 863 S.W.2d 794, 798 (1993); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Iowa 1990); State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277, 282 (La. 1997See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458 , 863 S.W.2d 794, 798 (1993); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Iowa 1990); State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277, 282 (La. | 2 | 2 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen2 sentences2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S. Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). 2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S. Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). | 1 | 1 |
Frederick Grim v. Marshall Fishergreen2 sentences2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S. Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). 2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’ ” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S.Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). | 1 | 1 |
Brim v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268, 270-275 (Fla. 1997). [6] In Frye , the court ruled: Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458 , 863 S.W.2d 794, 798 (1993); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 157 (Iowa 1990); State v. Garris, 603 So.2d 277, 282 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences2005The Frye court had held, "[W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." Id. 2004The Frye court had held, “[W]hile courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance 5 in the particular field in which it belongs.” Id. | 5 | 1994–2005 |
Byrd v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2005Id. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The high Court relaxed this standard for federal practice in Daubert , stating that the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702, superceded Frye because they were enacted after that decision. 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . 2005The high Court relaxed this standard for federal practice in Daubert , stating that the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 702, superceded Frye because they were enacted after that decision. 509 U.S. at 589 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Benjamin Flournoy, Jr. v. Larry Small
green
2 sentences2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S. Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). 2016Among the issues Bullcoming left unresolved was “the degree of proximity the testifying witness must have to the scientific test.’ ” Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296, 309 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Flournoy v. Small, 681 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2012)); see Bullcoming, 564 U.S. at 668 , 131 S.Ct. at 2722 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (noting “this is not a case in which the person testifying [was] a supervisor, reviewer, or someone else with a personal, albeit limited, connection to the scientific test at issue”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kennington v. Hemingway
green
1 sentence1912In Kennington v. Hemingway, 57 So. 809 , this court said: “Legislators must be presumed to be reasonable and sane men, ‘and to intend the natural, direct, and probable consequences of their acts, that these shall not be absurdly or unreasonably construed, and therefore that they intend to avoid absurdities and nonsense.’ . . . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.