outright violation (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

outright violation in Mississippi

9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2019 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Logan v. Stategreen
miss · 2000 · cited in 6 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2004–2019
2 sentences

2019“When the statement is not an outright violation, this Court will review the facts on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 166 (citing Logan v. State, 773 So. 2d 338, 348 (Miss. 2000)).

2011“When the statement is not an outright violation, this Court will review the facts on a case-by-case basis.” Wright, 958 So.2d at 166 [ (¶ 24) ] (citing Logan v. State, 773 So.2d 338, 348 [ (¶ 38) ] (Miss.2000)).

66
Wright v. Stategreen
miss · 2007 · cited in 5 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2004–2012
2 sentences

2012Additionally, when a prosecutor’s statement is not “an outright violation,” this Court will review the facts on a case-by-case basis.” Wright, 958 So.2d 158, 166 (¶ 24) (Miss.2007) (citation omitted).

2011“When the statement is not an outright violation, this Court will review the facts on a case-by-case basis.” Wright, 958 So.2d at 166 [ (¶ 24) ] (citing Logan v. State, 773 So.2d 338, 348 [ (¶ 38) ] (Miss.2000)).

35
Jimpson v. Stategreen
miss · 1988 · cited in 4 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2004–2012
2 sentences

2012Furthermore, “not every comment regarding the lack of any defense is automatically deemed to point toward the defense’s failure to testify.” Id. (citing Jimpson v. State, 532 So.2d 985, 991 (Miss.1998)). ¶ 29.

2011Furthermore, “not every comment regarding the lack of any defense is automatically deemed to point toward the defense’s failure to testify.” Id. (citing Jimpson v. State, 532 So.2d 985, 991 (Miss.1988)).

24
Tate v. Stategreen
miss · 2009 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Further, “when considering whether an attorney’s comment during opening or closing statements was improper, this Court must determine ‘whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created.’” Anderson v. State, 62 So. 3d 927, 940 (Miss. 2011) (quoting Tate v. State, 20 So. 3d 623, 629 (Miss. 2009)).

11
Anderson v. Stategreen
miss · 2011 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019Further, “when considering whether an attorney’s comment during opening or closing statements was improper, this Court must determine ‘whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created.’” Anderson v. State, 62 So. 3d 927, 940 (Miss. 2011) (quoting Tate v. State, 20 So. 3d 623, 629 (Miss. 2009)).

11
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Kinggreen
miss · 2006 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. King, 921 So.2d 268, 272 (Miss.2005).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Ladner v. State green
miss · 1991
1 sentence

2019“When the statement is not an outright violation, this Court will review the facts on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 166 (citing Logan v. State, 773 So. 2d 338, 348 (Miss. 2000)).

12019–2019

Where else courts name it

MS 9 (2004–2019) TX 5 (2001–2009) UT 5 (2012–2024) NJ 3 (1999–2006) PA 2 (2009–2011) CO 2 (1980–2002) TN 2 (2011–2016) IA 2 (2015–2015) OH 2 (2005–2010) SD 2 (2000–2002) MA 2 (1985–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check