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 1990–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2006Co. v. Williams, 936 So.2d 888, 894-95 (Miss.2006). 2005Co. v. Williams, No. 2004-CA-01249-SCT, 2006 Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Carpenter v. Nobilegreen2 sentences2002In interpreting § 69-13-111 , this Court has stated that "the language of the statute expressly creates a presumption that the owner of stray livestock is negligent in his confinement of the animal." Carpenter v. Nobile, 620 So.2d 961 , 963 (Miss. 1993). 2001In interpreting § 69-13-111, this Court has stated that "the language of the statute expressly creates a presumption that the owner of stray livestock is negligent in his confinement of the animal." Carpenter v. Nobile, 620 So.2d 961, 963 (Miss. 1993). | 1 | 2 |
Massey v. Masseygreen2 sentences2024See Massey, 475 So. 2d at 806 (“Appellant cannot now be heard to complain of procedural irregularities in . . . the report of the master, when appellant has, without objection, taken full advantage of all the benefits that were to be derived by both the litigants and the attorneys in . . . the chancery court of that county, derived from the services of the master”).11 11 “We caution attorneys, litigants and trial judges of this state to utilize Rule 53 in the future with great care.” Massey, 475 So. 2d at 806 (emphasis added). 2024See Massey, 475 So. 2d at 806 (“Appellant cannot now be heard to complain of procedural irregularities in . . . the report of the master, when appellant has, without objection, taken full advantage of all the benefits that were to be derived by both the litigants and the attorneys in . . . the chancery court of that county, derived from the services of the master”).11 11 “We caution attorneys, litigants and trial judges of this state to utilize Rule 53 in the future with great care.” Massey, 475 So. 2d at 806 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Andersongreen1 sentence2020In support, Jessica argues the general rule that “[a] final, appealable, judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the controversy which settles all issues as to all the parties and requires no further action by the lower court.” Anderson, 8 So. 3d at 270 (¶18) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶25. | 1 | 1 |
Nita B. Pogue v. International Industries, Inc., (Two Cases)green1 sentence2016Pogue v. Int’l Indus., Inc., 524 F.2d 342, 344 (6th Cir. 1975) (holding that the “district court may in its discretion consider the issues raised in the amended motion for new trial even though it was not filed within the time provided for by the rule where, as here, the original motion for a new trial was filed within the ten-day rule time period” under Rule 59). ¶30. | 1 | 1 |
McPhail v. City of Lumbertongreen1 sentence2014The ten-day requirement “is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Id. at 492 (¶ 8) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Canton Farm Equipment, Inc. v. Richardson
green
1 sentence1998On remand the circuit judge was to "hear and adjudge all claims and defenses without further nitpicking regarding jurisdictional questions." Canton Farm Equipment, 501 So.2d at 1103 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
In Re Long
green
1 sentence1990Roy cites In re Long, 184 So.2d 861 (Miss. 1966) and In re Edwards, 298 So.2d 703 (Miss. 1974) for the proposition that the time limits of the Youth Court Act are important and must be complied with by public officials. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Edwards
green
1 sentence1990Roy cites In re Long, 184 So.2d 861 (Miss. 1966) and In re Edwards, 298 So.2d 703 (Miss. 1974) for the proposition that the time limits of the Youth Court Act are important and must be complied with by public officials. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.