9 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keyes v. Guy Bailey Homes, Inc.green2 sentences1992Regarding § 11-7-20, we have said: "[a] plain reading of the statute clearly suggests that it was the legislative intent to remove the privity requirement in all cases." Keyes v. Guy Bailey Homes, Inc., 439 So.2d 670, 673 (Miss. 1983). 1990In that case, this Court held that: "[a] plain reading of the statute [§ 11-7-20] clearly suggests that it was the legislative intent to remove the privity requirement in all cases." 439 So.2d at 673 . | 3 | 4 |
May v. Ralph L. Dickerson Const. Corp.green2 sentences2010Dickerson Const. Corp., 560 So.2d 729, 730-31 (Miss.1990) (affirming that Section 11-7-20 of the Mississippi Code abolished the privity requirement for maintaining actions for negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty). ¶ 21. 2009Dickerson Const. Corp., 560 So. 2d 729, 730-31 (Miss. 1990) (affirming that Section 11-7-20 of the Mississippi Code abolished the privity requirement for maintaining actions for negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty). ¶21. | 2 | 2 |
Clark Lumber Co. v. Passiggreen1 sentence2014Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992); Clark Lumber Co. v. Passig, 339 P. 2d 280, 282 (Kan. 1959); McCleskey v. Finney, 130 So. 2d 183, 197 (Ala. 1961). 7 for in-rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
McCleskey v. Finneygreen1 sentence2014Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992); Clark Lumber Co. v. Passig, 339 P. 2d 280, 282 (Kan. 1959); McCleskey v. Finney, 130 So. 2d 183, 197 (Ala. 1961). 7 for in-rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Little v. v. & G Welding Supply, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999The state urges us to apply the privity analysis adopted in the civil case of Little v. V. & G Welding Supply, Inc., 704 So.2d 1336 (Miss.1997). 1997The state urges us to apply the privity analysis adopted in the civil case of Little v. V & G Welding Supply, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1336 (Miss. 1997). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Buck
green
1 sentence2014Co. v. Buck, 594 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1992); Clark Lumber Co. v. Passig, 339 P. 2d 280, 282 (Kan. 1959); McCleskey v. Finney, 130 So. 2d 183, 197 (Ala. 1961). 7 for in-rem or quasi-in-rem jurisdiction. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.