10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cucos, Inc. v. McDanielgreen2 sentences2009Although we employ a different analysis than the tribunals below, “ ‘[i]t is well established in our jurisprudence that the right result reached for the wrong reason will not be disturbed on appeal.’ ” Cucos, Inc. v. McDaniel, 938 So.2d 238, 247 (Miss.2006) (quoting Accredited Sur. & Cas. 2008Although we employ a different analysis than the tribunals below, “‘[i]t is well established in our jurisprudence that the right result reached for the wrong reason will not be disturbed on appeal.’” Cucos, Inc. v. McDaniel, 938 So. 2d 238, 247 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Accredited Sur. & Cas. | 2 | 2 |
Moorehead v. Hudsongreen1 sentence2022“The standard of review regarding the decision of a chancellor is well known and well settled.” Moorehead v. Hudson, 888 So. 2d 459, 461 (¶4) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Dockery v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Dockery v. State , 96 So.3d 759 , 763 (¶ 17) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Garlotte v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Although not directly on point, this Court, in Garlotte v. State, 915 So.2d 460, 465-66 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2005), discussed a United States Supreme Court case that succinctly addresses the situation at hand: In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Thus, if the defendant is found to have detrimentally relied on the Sta | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we must assess whether substantial credible evidence supports the trial court’s finding considering the totality of the circumstances.” Shaw v. State, 938 So.2d 853, 859 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing Price v. State, 752 So.2d 1070, 1073 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). 2015“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we must assess whether substantial credible evidence supports the trial court's finding considering the totality of the circumstances.” Shaw v. State, 938 So. 2d 853, 859 (¶15) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we must assess whether substantial credible evidence supports the trial court’s finding considering the totality of the circumstances.” Shaw v. State, 938 So.2d 853, 859 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing Price v. State, 752 So.2d 1070, 1073 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Jones v. State, 635 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. Allendale Planting Co.
green
1 sentence2022Additionally, the court stated that “Green’s brief was filed only two days after the deadline, and according to Rule 2(a)(2) of the M.R.A.P., well within the fourteen days this Court gives a party to correct a deficiency.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rice v. State
green
1 sentence2017"A judge is required to disqualify himself if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about his impartiality." Rice v. State , 134 So.3d 292 , 299 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Santobello v. New York
green
2 sentences2016Although not directly on point, this Court, in Garlotte v. State, 915 So.2d 460, 465-66 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2005), discussed a United States Supreme Court case that succinctly addresses the situation at hand: In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Thus, if the defendant is found to have detrimentally relied on the Sta 2016Although not directly on point, this Court, in Garlotte v. State, 915 So.2d 460, 465-66 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2005), discussed a United States Supreme Court case that succinctly addresses the situation at hand: In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Thus, if the defendant is found to have detrimentally relied on the Sta | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Templeton v. State
green
1 sentence2004"Trial judges are entitled to place great weight upon a defendant's initial plea under oath." Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764 (¶ 10) (Miss.1998). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stepney v. INGALLS SHIPBUILDING DIV., ETC.
green
1 sentence1998In their briefs, the parties also debate whether or not Green's claim is compensable as an exception to the "Going and Coming Rule" mentioned in Stepney v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc., 416 So.2d 963 (Miss.1982); and later in Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc. v. Dependents of Sloane, 480 So.2d 1117 (Miss.1985). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ingalls Shipbuilding v. Dependents of Sloane
green
2 sentences1998In their briefs, the parties also debate whether or not Green's claim is compensable as an exception to the "Going and Coming Rule" mentioned in Stepney v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc., 416 So.2d 963 (Miss.1982); and later in Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc. v. Dependents of Sloane, 480 So.2d 1117 (Miss.1985). 1998As stated in both cases, the general rule is "hazards encountered by employees while going to or returning from their regular place of work or of the employer's premises are not incident to employment and accidents arising therefrom are not compensable." Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc. v. Dependents of Sloane, 480 So.2d at 1118 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.