consideration claim in Mississippi

2003Walker, 671 So.2d at 591 .

1991Walker, 671 So. 2d at 591 .

1996Rogers v. State, 241 Miss. at 594 , 130 So.2d 856 .

1991Rogers v. State, 241 Miss. at 594 .

2025Id.

2024As another assignment of error under the chancellor’s Albright analysis, Christopher alleges that following an interview pursuant to Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So. 2d 270 (Miss. 3 Christopher argues the chancellor erred in applying all Albright factors except the physical and mental health and age of the parents and the general “other factors” provision; therefore, these factors will not be addressed. 7 1990), the chancellor erroneously found that C.M. was competent to testify and that C.M.’s reasons for her preference to live with her mother were rational, decisive, mature for her age, and in he

2005Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) exempts governmental entities from liability of a discretionary function or duty ‘whether or not the discretion be abused.’” Collins v. Tallahatchie County, 876 So. 2d 284, 289 (Miss. 2004). 10 dependent upon the officer’s judgment or discretion.” L.W., 754 So. 2d at 1141 .

1996Rogers v. State, 241 Miss. at 594 , 130 So.2d 856 .

1993The balancing test of Rule 609(a)(1), as elaborated upon in the Mississippi case Peterson v. State , involves the consideration of factors which originated in a federal case, Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936 (D.C.

1989This statement admonishing one to act cautiously and to assure himself of authority is commensurate with the Court’s requirements in Grisham v. Hinton, 490 So.2d 1201 (Miss.1986).

1909The case of Bank v. Frazer, 63 Miss. 231 , as well pointed out by learned, counsel for appellee, is a case turning principally upon usury, and is therefore out of place in the consideration of the principle underlying these merely unenforceable contracts.