8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthygreen2 sentences2009Dr. Guild cites Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So.2d 1, 24 (Miss.2002), where this Court held that a failure to raise the issue of another tortfeasor during discovery barred the right to an apportionment instruction. ¶ 32. 2009Dr. Guild cites Coho Resources, Inc. v. McCarthy, 829 So.2d 1, 24 (Miss.2002), where this Court held that a failure to raise the issue of another tortfeasor during discovery barred the right to an apportionment instruction. *262 ¶ 32. | 3 | 3 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Harris v. State, 861 So.2d 1003, 1016 (Miss.2003). 2004Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003, 1016 (Miss. 2003) (citing Gray v. State, 728 So. 2d 36, 60 (Miss. 1998)); see also Samuels v. State, 371 So. 2d 394, 396 (Miss. 1979) (It is not generally the obligation of the trial court to prepare and submit jury instructions on behalf of the State or the defendant). 2 Although the record is not clear, it appears Young wanted an apportionment instruction because she feared her individual claims would be reduced because of the alleged negligence of other heirs. 12 ¶30. | 2 | 2 |
Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Boardgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 169 [, 103 S.Ct. 2933 , 77 L.Ed.2d 545 ] (1983). 2000See, e.g., Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. 159, 169 [, 103 S.Ct. 2933 , 77 L.Ed.2d 545 ] (1983). | 2 | 2 |
Gray v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003, 1016 (Miss. 2003) (citing Gray v. State, 728 So. 2d 36, 60 (Miss. 1998)); see also Samuels v. State, 371 So. 2d 394, 396 (Miss. 1979) (It is not generally the obligation of the trial court to prepare and submit jury instructions on behalf of the State or the defendant). 2 Although the record is not clear, it appears Young wanted an apportionment instruction because she feared her individual claims would be reduced because of the alleged negligence of other heirs. 12 ¶30. | 1 | 1 |
Samuels v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Harris v. State, 861 So. 2d 1003, 1016 (Miss. 2003) (citing Gray v. State, 728 So. 2d 36, 60 (Miss. 1998)); see also Samuels v. State, 371 So. 2d 394, 396 (Miss. 1979) (It is not generally the obligation of the trial court to prepare and submit jury instructions on behalf of the State or the defendant). 2 Although the record is not clear, it appears Young wanted an apportionment instruction because she feared her individual claims would be reduced because of the alleged negligence of other heirs. 12 ¶30. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2000The United States Supreme Court discussed the apportionment requirement in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 260-62 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989): [T]he central purpose behind the apportionment requirement is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction. 2000The United States Supreme Court discussed the apportionment requirement in Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252, 260-62 , 109 S.Ct. 582 , 102 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989): [T]he central purpose behind the apportionment requirement is to ensure that each State taxes only its fair share of an interstate transaction. | 3 | 1992–2000 |
Ashland Pipe Line Co. v. Marx
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stuart's, Inc. v. Brown
green
1 sentence2004In Stuart’s, Inc. v. Brown, 543 So.2d 649 , 654 (Miss.1989), the supreme court found that only “pre-existing occupational disabilities generate a duty to apportion.” However, in the present case, neither party raised the issue of apportionment nor was there any evidence presented to prove that McMillian had a pre-existing disability which caused him to be occupationally disabled prior to his injury at work. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.