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 1999–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences2008This Court has held "where an objection is sustained, and no request is made that the jury be told to disregard the objectionable matter, there is no error." Minor v. State, 831 So.2d 1116, 1123 (Miss.2002) (quoting Perry v. State, 637 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1994)). 2004This Court has held “where an objection is sustained, and no request is made that the jury be told to disregard the objectionable matter, there is no error.” Minor v. State, 831 So. 2d 1116, 1123 (Miss. 2002) 13 (quoting Perry v. State, 637 So. 2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Smith v. State, 792 So.2d 343 (Miss.Ct. 2004See Smith v. State, 792 So. 2d 343 (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Minor v. Stategreen2 sentences2008This Court has held "where an objection is sustained, and no request is made that the jury be told to disregard the objectionable matter, there is no error." Minor v. State, 831 So.2d 1116, 1123 (Miss.2002) (quoting Perry v. State, 637 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1994)). 2004This Court has held “where an objection is sustained, and no request is made that the jury be told to disregard the objectionable matter, there is no error.” Minor v. State, 831 So. 2d 1116, 1123 (Miss. 2002) 13 (quoting Perry v. State, 637 So. 2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2023In Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 557 F.3d 1257, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said that a Ford/Panetti claim is unripe until the time of execution: The reason the Ford claim was not ripe at the time of the first petition in Panetti is not that evidence of an existing or past fact had not been uncovered at that time. 2023Instead, the reason it was unripe was that no Ford claim is ever ripe at the time of the first petition because the facts to be measured or proven—the mental state of the petitioner at the time of execution—do not and cannot exist when the execution is years away. 557 F.3d at 1260 . | 1 | 1 |
Nooner v. Norrisgreen1 sentence2023The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, too, said that “in both [Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 , (1998),] and Panetti, the Supreme Court indicated the setting of an execution date caused the applicants’ Ford based incompetency claims to become ripe.” Nooner v. Norris, 499 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Panetti, 127 S. Ct. at 2852 ; Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. at 643 ). 26 ¶62. | 1 | 1 |
Branch v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Branch v. State, 118 So.3d 646, 655-56 (¶ 43) (Miss.Ct.App.2013). ¶ 38. | 1 | 1 |
McNeese v. McNeesegreen1 sentence2015See McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So.3d 264, 273 (¶ 23) (Miss.2013) (finding no abuse of discretion in a chancellor’s denial of the appellant’s post-judgment motion, as it was “merely an attempt to relitigate the case”). ¶ 18. | 1 | 1 |
Flora v. Stategreen1 sentence2011“When a trial judge sustains an objection to testimony and directs the jury to disregard the statement, it is presumed, unless otherwise shown, that the jury followed the directions of the trial judge to disregard such comment or testimony.” Id. at 805 (¶ 10) (citation and quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gatlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice (URCCCP) 7.06 provides the required contents of an indictment: the name of the accused; the date on which the indictment was filed in each court; a statement that the prosecution is brought in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi; the county and judicial district in which the indictment is brought; the date, and if applicable, the time, on which the offense was alleged to be committed; the signature of the foreman of the grand jury issuing the indictment; and the words "against the peace and dignity of the state." Further, | 1 | 1 |
Carroll v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice (URCCCP) 7.06 provides the required contents of an indictment: the name of the accused; the date on which the indictment was filed in each court; a statement that the prosecution is brought in the name and by the authority of the State of Mississippi; the county and judicial district in which the indictment is brought; the date, and if applicable, the time, on which the offense was alleged to be committed; the signature of the foreman of the grand jury issuing the indictment; and the words "against the peace and dignity of the state." Further, | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Williams v. State, 772 So.2d 406, 408 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Williams v. State, 772 So.2d 406, 408 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (citing Peterson v. State, 671 So.2d 647, 652 (Miss.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal
green
2 sentences2023The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, too, said that “in both [Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 , (1998),] and Panetti, the Supreme Court indicated the setting of an execution date caused the applicants’ Ford based incompetency claims to become ripe.” Nooner v. Norris, 499 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Panetti, 127 S. Ct. at 2852 ; Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. at 643 ). 26 ¶62. 2023The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, too, said that “in both [Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 , (1998),] and Panetti, the Supreme Court indicated the setting of an execution date caused the applicants’ Ford based incompetency claims to become ripe.” Nooner v. Norris, 499 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Panetti, 127 S. Ct. at 2852 ; Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. at 643 ). 26 ¶62. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
1 sentence2022Ford alleged that the 911 caller, “identified as Sean Jackson, denie[d] that there was a robbery and sa[id] the suspects just put items in the basket, looked at them, and walked [out] of the store.” Ford also “claim[ed] that his plea was not intelligently given” because “he did not know about the [recording].” The circuit court denied Ford’s motion, ruling that “a defendant who pleads guilty admits his culpability and, therefore, cannot later claim innocence even after the 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 37-38 & n.10 (1970) (holding that a court may accept a guilty plea even if the d | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ford v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Fulgham v. State
green
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wetz v. State
green
1 sentence1999Wetz, 503 So.2d at 808 n. 3. d. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.