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 1989–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jessie Earl White v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2022This Court held that the claim of a fundamental right violation is not barred by res judicata in White v. State, 157 So. 3d 116, 118 (¶6) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Antonio Scott v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2020Scott v. State, 187 So. 3d 679, 681 (¶5) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Wendell Duncan v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2018Duncan , 226 So.3d at 129 (¶ 10). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Blount v. State, 126 So.3d 927, 930 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2013); see also Bailey v. State, 65 So.3d 349, 350 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (“[T]he mere assertion of a constitutional-right violation does not suffice to overcome the three-year time bar.”). ¶ 6. | 1 | 1 |
Blount v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Blount v. State, 126 So.3d 927, 930 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2013); see also Bailey v. State, 65 So.3d 349, 350 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (“[T]he mere assertion of a constitutional-right violation does not suffice to overcome the three-year time bar.”). ¶ 6. | 1 | 1 |
Stovall v. Stategreen1 sentence2015“There must at least appear-to be some basis for the truth of the claim before' the limitation period will be waived.” Id. (quoting Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056, 1058 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)); We will evaluate each of Pinkney’s claims in order to determine whether the fundamental-right exception applies to overcome the procedural bars. | 1 | 1 |
Salter v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Id. at 517-18 (¶ 14). ¶ 7. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willie James Allen v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2018However, "mere assertion[s] of a fundamental-right violation [are] not enough." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Chandler v. State
green
1 sentence2015“There must at least appear-to be some basis for the truth of the claim before' the limitation period will be waived.” Id. (quoting Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056, 1058 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)); We will evaluate each of Pinkney’s claims in order to determine whether the fundamental-right exception applies to overcome the procedural bars. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Edlin v. State
green
2 sentences2009As stated in Edlin, supra, “the defendant is [ ] entitled to be repre sented by counsel during this very important procedure.” Id. at 45 . 2009As stated in Edlin, supra, “the defendant is [ ] entitled to be repre sented by counsel during this very important procedure.” Id. at 45 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Jimpson v. State
green
1 sentence1989The rationale set out in Jimpson, supra, is linked to our holding in Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300 (Miss. 1988), where we recognized the appellant's fundamental right to challenge improper comments on the part of the prosecutor. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Griffin v. State
green
1 sentence1989This Court in Livingston , citing West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985), Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d 860 (Miss. 1987), and Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1987) said: As we stated in West , comments on the defendant's failure to testify violate an "elementary and long established principle of law." In West, Griffin and Monroe , we recognized that the principle involves a constitutional right. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Livingston v. State
green
1 sentence1989The rationale set out in Jimpson, supra, is linked to our holding in Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300 (Miss. 1988), where we recognized the appellant's fundamental right to challenge improper comments on the part of the prosecutor. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Monroe v. State
green
1 sentence1989This Court in Livingston , citing West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985), Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d 860 (Miss. 1987), and Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1987) said: As we stated in West , comments on the defendant's failure to testify violate an "elementary and long established principle of law." In West, Griffin and Monroe , we recognized that the principle involves a constitutional right. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
West v. State
green
1 sentence1989This Court in Livingston , citing West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985), Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d 860 (Miss. 1987), and Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1987) said: As we stated in West , comments on the defendant's failure to testify violate an "elementary and long established principle of law." In West, Griffin and Monroe , we recognized that the principle involves a constitutional right. | 1 | 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.