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 1987–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jerry Maurice Alford v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2022See Alford v. State, 185 So. 3d 429, 432 (¶16) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Fortenberry v. City of Hattiesburggreen1 sentence2021Fortenberry v. City of Hattiesburg, 758 So. 2d 1023, 1026 (¶14) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co.green1 sentence2021We reiterate that “[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings under [Rule] 12(c) serves a similar function to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Hartford, 826 So. 2d at 1210 (¶8). | 1 | 1 |
Vijay Patel v. Hill-Rom Company, Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2021In Patel v. Hill-Rom Co., 194 So. 3d 898, 899 (¶5) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Tunica County, Mississippi v. Town of Tunica, Mississippigreen1 sentence2021Id. at 1027 (¶46). | 1 | 1 |
Hooker v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Id. at (¶16).5 4 We note that page 5 of the 9-page resolution does not appear in the record. 5 See generally Hooker v. State, 516 So. 2d 1349, 1353 (Miss. 1987) (Upon review of appellant’s embezzlement conviction, supreme court held “conversion would not be unlawful if the owner of the property consented thereto or made a gift of the property upon 11 ¶21. | 1 | 1 |
Hyundai Motor America v. Applewhitegreen1 sentence2017Rule 702 provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: 4 Regarding the timing of Roberts’s motion to exclude Holly’s expert testimony, this Court has held that “[a]lthough a pretrial motion and hearing challenging the admissibility of expert opinions may in some, if not most, cases be a prudent practice, this Court has held that this is not the exclusive means of mounting challenges to such testimony.” Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite, 53 So. 3d 749, 754 (Miss. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Shearer v. Stategreen1 sentence2010The circuit judge “enjoys a considerable amount of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.” Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 826 (Miss.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Stringer v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Roberts' claim is addressed under a two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and followed by our supreme court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Browngreen1 sentence1987Recently in Brown v. Brown, 493 So.2d 961, 964 (Miss. 1986) this Court cited with displeasure the act of a party who invoked the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act when it suited his convenience and waived it when it did not. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008The unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is "its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude." Id. at 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . 2008The unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is "its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude." Id. at 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Roberts v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at (¶16).5 4 We note that page 5 of the 9-page resolution does not appear in the record. 5 See generally Hooker v. State, 516 So. 2d 1349, 1353 (Miss. 1987) (Upon review of appellant’s embezzlement conviction, supreme court held “conversion would not be unlawful if the owner of the property consented thereto or made a gift of the property upon 11 ¶21. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2008The unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is "its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude." Id. at 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . 2008The unpardonable vice of the Roberts test is "its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude." Id. at 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2002Roberts' claim is addressed under a two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and followed by our supreme court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). 2002Roberts' claim is addressed under a two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and followed by our supreme court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468, 476 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.