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.
8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cotton v. Mississippi Parole Bd.green2 sentences2011As noted in Cotton , “the Parole Board is given ‘absolute discretion’ to determine who is entitled to parole within the boundaries of factors set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-3.” Cotton, 863 So.2d at 921 (¶ 11). 2006As noted in Cotton , "the Parole Board is given `absolute discretion' to determine who is entitled to parole within the boundaries of factors set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-3." Cotton, 863 So.2d at 921 (¶ 11). | 5 | 5 |
Hopson v. MISSISSIPPI STATE PAROLE BD.green1 sentence2013Further, in Hopson v. Mississippi State Parole Board,, 976 So.2d 973, 975 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2008), this Court ruled that “[b]y statute, the Parole Board is given ‘absolute discretion’ to determine who is entitled to parole within the boundaries of the factors set forth in [section] 47-7-3.” As a result, Wilde, as other prisoners, does not have a constitutionally recognized liberty interest in parole. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. State
green
2 sentences2007Prohibited conduct by a prosecutor was also exemplified in the case of Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1142 (Miss. 1983), where the prosecutor asked the jury during closing arguments: "[W]hat about the things Mr. Vollor didn't do. 2005Prohibited conduct by a prosecutor was also exemplified in the case of Wilson v. State. 433 So. 2d 1142 (Miss. 1983), where the prosecutor asked the jury during closing arguments: “[W]hat about the things Mr. Vollor didn’t do. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
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.