9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Our caselaw makes it abundantly clear that an attempt instruction is insufficient if it neglects to mention “the failure or prevention of completion of the offense.” Thompson, 726 So. 2d at 237 (¶22). 2017Our caselaw makes it abundantly clear that an attempt instruction is insufficient if it neglects to mention “the failure or prevention of completion of the offense.” Thompson, 726 So. 2d at 237 (¶22). | 2 | 2 |
Pierre v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Therefore, this claim is not properly before this Court because "[i]f an appellant fails to support her allegation of error with argument or authority, this Court need not consider the issue." Pierre v. State, 607 So.2d 43, 48 (Miss.1992) (citations omitted). 14. 2007Therefore, this claim is not properly before this Court because “[i]f an appellant fails to support her allegation of error with argument or authority, this Court need not consider the issue.” Pierre v. State, 607 So. 2d 43, 48 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). 14. | 2 | 2 |
Ferris v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence2023However, in the part of the opinion now cited by the lead opinion, this Court stated: Our supreme court has stated, “Replevin is a possessory action only, the gist of which is the right of possession in the plaintiff.” Ferris v. Hawkins, 418 So. 2d 811, 814 (Miss. 1982) (quoting Deposit Guar. | 1 | 1 |
John P. Alphonso v. Bishop John Douglas Deshotel and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallasgreen1 sentence2014Young and its predecessor, Seely v. State, 451 So.2d 213 (Miss.1984), clearly stand for the proposition that “[ejvidence which is not admitted cannot be considered proof in the case,” Alphonso v. Deshotel, 417 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Tex.Ct.App.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Windham v. Latco of Mississippi, Inc.green1 sentence2008In order to establish equitable estoppel, "which should only be used in exceptional circumstances and must be based on public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and reasonableness, there must be (1) belief and reliance on some representation; (2) a change of position as a result thereof; and (3) detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position." Windham v. Latco of Miss., Inc., 972 So.2d 608, 612 (¶ 6) (Miss. 2008) (internal citations and quotations 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seely v. State
green
2 sentences2014Young and its predecessor, Seely v. State, 451 So.2d 213 (Miss.1984), clearly stand for the proposition that “[ejvidence which is not admitted cannot be considered proof in the case,” Alphonso v. Deshotel, 417 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Tex.Ct.App.2013). 2014Young and its predecessor, Seely v. State, 451 So. 2d 213 (Miss. 1984), clearly stand for the proposition that “[e]vidence which is not admitted cannot be considered proof in the case,” Alphonso v. Deshotel, 17 S.W.3d 194 , 201 (Tex. Ct. App. 2013). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
McCullum v. State
green
1 sentence2009Similarly, in McCullum v. State, 487 So.2d 1335 (Miss.1986), the defendant was tried and convicted of welfare fraud for attempting to fraudulently receive an unauthorized payment of food stamps, under Mississippi Code Section 97-19-71. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.