de novo standard in Mississippi

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if the [circuit] court abused its discretion and the decision is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Green I, 242 So. 3d at 178 (¶5) (citing Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss.

2016“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s *208 decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Carson v. State, 161 So.3d 153, 155 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (citing Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2012)).

1999"This Court employs a de novo standard of review in reviewing a lower court's grant of a summary judgment motion." Short v. Columbus Rubber & Gasket Co., 535 So.2d 61, 63 (Miss.1988).

1998"This Court employs a de novo standard of review in reviewing a lower court's grant of a summary judgment motion." Short v. Columbus Rubber & Gasket Co., 535 So.2d 61, 63 (Miss.1988).

2024STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶42. “[W]hen reviewing a chancellor’s legal findings, particularly involving the interpretation or construction of a will, this Court will apply a de novo standard of review.” 19 Last Will and Testament of Carney, 758 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (¶8) (Miss. 2000) (quoting In re Est. of Homburg, 697 So. 2d 1154, 1157 (Miss. 1997)).

2023The chancellor’s “interpretation and application of the law is reviewed under a de novo standard.” Id. (citing Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So. 2d 190, 192 (¶10) (Miss. 2001); In re Carney, 758 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (¶8) (Miss. 2000)).

2017See Lisanby , 47 So.3d at 1185-86 (¶ 56) (reversing a jury verdict for extracontractual damages after finding that USAA's reliance on a report from an engineer, information from an adjuster, and information from the insured provided USAA with an arguable basis for its determination that only a portion of the insured's damage was caused by wind); Anglado v. Leaf River Forest Prod., Inc ., 716 So.2d 543 , 547 (¶ 13) (Miss. 1998) (a de novo standard of review is applied to the appeal of a circuit court's grant of summary judgment).

2017I will separately address the record support for the circuit court’s 5 See Lisanby, 47 So. 3d at 1185-86 (¶56) (reversing a jury verdict for extracontractual damages after finding that USAA’s reliance on a report from an engineer, information from an adjuster, and information from the insured provided USAA with an arguable basis for its determination that only a portion of the insured’s damage was caused by wind); Anglado v. Leaf River Forest Prod., Inc., 716 So. 2d 543, 547 (¶13) (Miss. 1998) (a de novo standard of review is applied to the appeal of a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment

2019“This Court applies a de novo standard of review to a grant of summary judgment by the lower court.” Hudson v. Courtesy Motors Inc., 794 So. 2d 999, 1002 (¶7) (Miss. 2001). ¶20.

2010Hudson v. Courtesy Motors, Inc., 794 So.2d 999, 1002 (¶7) (Miss.2001).

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Magee v. State, 340 So. 3d 297 , 300 (Miss. 2022) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844, 846 (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844, 846 (¶5) (Miss.

2017This Court employs the de novo standard when reviewing a lower court’s grant or denial of summary judgment and examines all the evidentiary matters before it, including admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, deposition testimony, affidavits, etc. McMillan v. Rodriguez, 823 So.2d 1173, 1176-77 (Miss. 2002), citations omitted.

2011When considering a lower court’s grant or denial of summary judgment, this Court employs a de novo standard of review and examines all of the evidentiary matters before it, including admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 956 So.2d 251, 255 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing McMillan v. Rodriguez, 823 So.2d 1173, 1176-77 (¶ 9) (Miss.2002)).

2018“We employ a de novo standard of review of a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment ....” Davis v. Hoss, 869 So.2d 397, 401 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004). ¶ 4.

2017“We employ a de novo standard of review of a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment and examine all the evidentiary matters before it . . . .” Davis v. Hoss, 869 So. 2d 397, 401 (¶10) (Miss. 2004).

2015When reviewing an appeal of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, this Court applies “a de novo standard of review.” Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393, 398 (Miss.2006).

2009ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE ¶ 7. “[An appellate court] applies a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.” Windham v. Latco of Miss., Inc., 972 So.2d 608, 610 (¶ 4) (Miss.2008) (citing Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So.2d 393, 398 (¶ 15) (Miss.2006)).

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, this Court applies a de novo standard of review,” Burleson v. Lathem, 968 So. 2d 930, 932 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2007) (citing Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2006); Park on Lakeland Drive, Inc. v. Spence, 941 So. 2d 203, 206 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2006); McLendon v. State, 945 So. 2d 372, 382 (¶ 26) (Miss. 2006); Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2005)), and summary judgment should be granted 5 only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving p

2016See Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 931 So.2d 1274 (¶ 6) (Miss.2006); see also Burch, 136 So.3d at 1065 (¶ 3) (“The de novo standard also applies to the application of a statute of limitations, which is a question of law.”).

2019The Court "applies a de novo standard of review to the statute of limitations." Fletcher v. Lyles , 999 So.2d 1271 , 1276 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2009) (citing Ellis v. Anderson Tully Co. , 727 So.2d 716 , 718 (¶ 14) (Miss. 1998) ).

2019The Court “applies a de novo standard of review to the statute of limitations.” 5 Fletcher v. Lyles, 999 So. 2d 1271, 1276 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2009) (citing Ellis v. Anderson Tully Co., 727 So. 2d 716, 718 (¶ 14) (Rev. 1998)).

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, this Court applies a de novo standard of review,” Burleson v. Lathem, 968 So. 2d 930, 932 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2007) (citing Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2006); Park on Lakeland Drive, Inc. v. Spence, 941 So. 2d 203, 206 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2006); McLendon v. State, 945 So. 2d 372, 382 (¶ 26) (Miss. 2006); Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2005)), and summary judgment should be granted 5 only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving p

2020“This Court reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for 5 summary judgment or a motion to dismiss under a de novo standard.” Arceo v. Tolliver, 949 So. 2d 691, 694 (Miss. 2006) (citing Monsanto v. Hall, 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (Miss. 2005)). “[T]he burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of fact exists is on the moving party.” Moore ex rel.

2007Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss.2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001)).

2007Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss.2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.2001)).

2013Russell v. Orr, 700 So.2d 619, 622 (¶ 8) (Miss.1997).

2007Russell v. Orr, 700 So.2d 619, 622 (Miss. 1997); Richmond v. Benchmark Constr.

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Gunn v. State, 248 So. 3d 937, 941 (¶15) (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Gunn v. State, 248 So. 3d 937, 941 (¶15) (Miss.

2017“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Thinnes v. State, 196 So.3d 204, 207-08 (¶ 10) (Miss.

2017"When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Thinnes v. State , 196 So.3d 204 , 207-08 (¶ 10) (Miss.

2024“On the other hand, when we review questions of law, a de novo standard of review is applied.” Id. at 972 (citing Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So. 2d 190, 192 (Miss. 2001)).

2023The chancellor’s “interpretation and application of the law is reviewed under a de novo standard.” Id. (citing Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So. 2d 190, 192 (¶10) (Miss. 2001); In re Carney, 758 So. 2d 1017, 1019 (¶8) (Miss. 2000)).

2010However, when reviewing a question of law, we “[apply] a de novo standard of review.” Id. (citing Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So.2d 719, 721 (¶ 5) (Miss.2002)).

2009Despite our highly deferential standard of review regarding factual findings, “[r]egarding legal questions, [we apply] a de novo standard of review.” Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So.2d 1185, 1190 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008) (citing Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So.2d 719, 721 (¶ 5) (Miss.2002)). 1.

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Boyd v. State, 65 So. 3d 358, 360 (¶10) (Miss.

2017After reviewing Williams’s PCR petition, as well as “all files, records, transcripts, and correspondence pertaining to the judgment under attaek[,]” the circuit court filed an order on July 14, 2015, denying Williams’s PCR petition and finding no merit to each of his asserted claims, Aggrieved by the circuit court’s judgment, Williams appeals. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 4, ‘When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusion

2024“When reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, this Court applies a de novo standard of review[.]” Gibson v. Williams, 6 The final judgments were entered on December 2, 2022. 4 Williams & Montgomery P.A., 186 So. 3d 836, 844 (¶14) (Miss. 2016) (citing Burleson v. Lathem, 968 So. 2d 930, 932 (¶7) (Miss. 2007)). “[S]ummary judgment should be granted only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing M.R.C.P. 56(c)).

2024“When reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, this Court applies a de novo standard of review[.]” Gibson v. Williams, 6 The final judgments were entered on December 2, 2022. 4 Williams & Montgomery P.A., 186 So. 3d 836, 844 (¶14) (Miss. 2016) (citing Burleson v. Lathem, 968 So. 2d 930, 932 (¶7) (Miss. 2007)). “[S]ummary judgment should be granted only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing M.R.C.P. 56(c)).

2023“This Court applies a de novo standard of review when questions of law are to be considered on appeal.” Polk v. State, 150 So. 3d 967, 968 (¶4) (Miss. 2014) (citing Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (Miss. 1999)).

2013“Questions of law receive a de novo analysis.” Id.

2017“This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law including statute of limitations issues.” Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 850 So. 2d 78, 82 (Miss. 2003).

2017"This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law including statute of limitations issues." Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y , 850 So.2d 78 , 82 (Miss. 2003).

2026The majority’s holding that only one of those neurosurgeons, Dr. McBride, as the treating 12 The Court of Appeals “applies a de novo standard of review to a grant of summary judgment by the trial court.” Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So. 2d 152, 156 (¶9) (Miss. 2004).

2011Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So.2d 152, 156 (¶ 9) (Miss.2004).

2021But this Court “appl[ies] a de novo standard of review to questions of law.” Walker v. State, 303 So. 3d 720 , 726 (Miss. 2020) (citing Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690, 694 (Miss. 2009)).

2015On appeal, this Court must reverse the circuit court’s judgment “only if [the circuit court’s] factual findings are clearly erroneous; however [this Court] review[s] the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Beal v. State, 58 So.3d 709, 710 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Doss v. State, 19 So.3d 690, 694 (¶ 5) (Miss.2009)).

2016The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that an appellate court “reviews a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss under a de novo standard.” Copiah Cty. v. Oliver, 51 So.3d 205, 207 (¶ 7) (Miss.2011) (citation omitted).

2015However, in Oliver, 51 So.3d at 207 (¶ 7), the supreme court applied the de novo standard in reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis of judicial estoppel.

2006Morgan, 812 So.2d at 990 (¶ 8) (citing Bank of Mississippi v. Hollingsworth, 609 So.2d 422, 424 (Miss.1992)).

2006Morgan, 812 So.2d at 990 (¶ 8) (citing Bank of Mississippi v. Hollingsworth, 609 So.2d 422, 424 (Miss.1992)).

2023“In matters that are questions of law, this Court employs a de novo standard of review and will only reverse for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.” Morgan v. West, 812 So. 2d 987, 990 (¶8) (Miss. 2002).

2023“In matters that are questions of law, this Court employs a de novo standard of review and will only reverse for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.” Morgan v. West, 812 So. 2d 987, 990 (¶8) (Miss. 2002).

2022“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a [PCR motion], we will only disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1172 (¶3) (Miss. 2015).

2021“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a [PCR motion], we will only disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” 4 Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1172 (¶3) (Miss. 2015).

2022“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Bass v. State, 237 So. 3d 172, 173 (¶4) (Miss.

2022In considering on appeal the dismissal or denial of a PCR motion, “we will only disturb the circuit court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Nance, 327 So. 3d at 1092 (¶12) (quoting Bass v. State, 237 So. 3d 172, 173 (¶4) (Miss.

2019“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Berry v. State, 230 So. 3d 360, 362 (¶3) (Miss.

2018"When reviewing a circuit court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Berry v. State , 230 So.3d 360 , 362 (¶ 3) (Miss.