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.
9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'BRYANT v. Stategreen2 sentences2001O'Bryant v. State, 530 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss.1988). 2000O'Bryant v. State, 530 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss. 1988). | 2 | 2 |
Hester v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Hester v. State, 602 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1992). 1996Hester v. State, 602 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Quitman Knitting Mill v. Smithgreen2 sentences1989See also Quitman Knitting Mill v. Smith, 540 So.2d 623, 629 (Miss.1989). 1989See also Quitman Knitting Mill v. Smith, 540 So.2d 623, 629 (Miss. 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Mease v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Mease v. State, 539 So.2d 1324, 1330 (Miss.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Goodwin v. Derryberry Co.green1 sentence2003Goodwin v. Derryberry Co., 553 So.2d 40, 42 (Miss.1989). | 1 | 1 |
South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. v. Adengreen1 sentence1986South Central Bell Telephone Company v. Aden, 474 So.2d 584, 595 (Miss. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marshall Durbin, Inc. v. Hall
green
2 sentences1989We there said The apportionment section of the Act may not be employed to deprive an injured worker of benefits to which he is by law entitled where the sole evidence supporting the claim of apportionment is that the injured worker had a preexisting, asymptomatic degenerative condition. 490 So.2d at 881 . 1989We there said The apportionment section of the Act may not be employed to deprive an injured worker of benefits to which he is by law entitled where the sole evidence supporting the claim of apportionment is that the injured worker had a preexisting, asymptomatic degenerative condition. 490 So.2d at 881 . | 2 | 1989–1989 |
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.