Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Earl v. Stategreen2 sentences1998This Court has further said: [I]n holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for *811 the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Earl v. State, 672 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Miss. 1996) ( quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 721 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 ( 1998This Court has further said: [I]n holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Earl v. State, 672 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Miss. 1996) ( quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) | 4 | 4 |
Barber v. Pagered2 sentences1998This Court has further said: [I]n holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for *811 the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Earl v. State, 672 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Miss. 1996) ( quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 721 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 ( 1998This Court has further said: [I]n holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for *811 the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Earl v. State, 672 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Miss. 1996) ( quoting Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 721 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 ( | 2 | 4 |
Douglas v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1996See also Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). 1996See also Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). | 2 | 2 |
Lee v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2019The United States Supreme Court has noted that “there are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in the expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country’s constitutional goal.” Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 540 (1986). ¶41. 2009Smith, 986 So.2d at 296 (¶ 19) (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 580 , 540, 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). | 1 | 4 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Smith, 986 So.2d at 296 (¶ 19) (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 580 , 540, 106 S.Ct. 2056 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences1996More recently, in holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). 1996More recently, in holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, "There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405 , 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068 , 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). | 3 | 1992–2008 |
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.