8 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fitch v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2015See Fitch v. Valentine, 13 959 So. 2d 1012, 1022 (Miss. 2007) (“this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review”); see also White v. Thompson, 822 So. 2d 1125, 1128 (Miss. 2015See Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012, 1022 (Miss.2007) (“this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review”); -see also White v. Thompson, 822 So.2d 1125, 1128 (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (abuse of discretion “is highly deferential”). | 2 | 2 |
White v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2015See Fitch v. Valentine, 13 959 So. 2d 1012, 1022 (Miss. 2007) (“this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review”); see also White v. Thompson, 822 So. 2d 1125, 1128 (Miss. 2015See Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012, 1022 (Miss.2007) (“this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review”); -see also White v. Thompson, 822 So.2d 1125, 1128 (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (abuse of discretion “is highly deferential”). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2008In light of the "wide latitude" extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court's denial of Dora's motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So.2d at 161 , the principle that "any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney," Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So.2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor's statement is nothing more than "a comment on defendant's failure to p 2008In light of the "wide latitude" extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court's denial of Dora's motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So.2d at 161 , the principle that "any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney," Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So.2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor's statement is nothing more than "a comment on defendant's failure to p | 2 | 2 |
Diane M. Cutting and Warren L. Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2002Under this standard "[courts] pull back and defer broadly although not totally to the administration's determination, upending it only if persuaded that the administrator acted unreasonably." Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 ). 2000Under this standard "[courts] pull back and defer broadly although not totally to the administration's determination, upending it only if persuaded that the administrator acted unreasonably." 4 Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115 )). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sheppard v. State
green
2 sentences2008In light of the "wide latitude" extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court's denial of Dora's motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So.2d at 161 , the principle that "any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney," Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So.2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor's statement is nothing more than "a comment on defendant's failure to p 2004In light of the “wide latitude” extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So. 2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court’s denial of Dora’s motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So. 2d at 161 , the principle that “any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney,” Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So. 2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor’s statement is nothing more than “a comment on defendant’s failure t | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Wright v. State
green
2 sentences2008In light of the "wide latitude" extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court's denial of Dora's motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So.2d at 161 , the principle that "any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney," Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So.2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor's statement is nothing more than "a comment on defendant's failure to p 2008In light of the "wide latitude" extended to attorneys in their closing arguments, Sheppard, 777 So.2d at 661 , the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applicable to the circuit court's denial of Dora's motion for mistrial, see Wright, 958 So.2d at 161 , the principle that "any doubts should be resolved in favor of the integrity, competence and proper performance of the official duties of the judge and prosecuting attorney," Thomas v. State, 247 Miss. 704, 712 , 159 So.2d 77, 80 (1963), and the fact that the prosecutor's statement is nothing more than "a comment on defendant's failure to p | 2 | 2004–2008 |
Baldwin v. State
green
2 sentences2007Once again, this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review, see id., and finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the introduction of evidence regarding the child born to Valentine following his divorce from Sandra. 2005Once again, this Court applies the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review, see id., and finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the introduction of evidence regarding the child born to Valentine following his divorce from Sandra. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch
green
2 sentences2002Under this standard "[courts] pull back and defer broadly although not totally to the administration's determination, upending it only if persuaded that the administrator acted unreasonably." Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 ). 2002Under this standard "[courts] pull back and defer broadly although not totally to the administration's determination, upending it only if persuaded that the administrator acted unreasonably." Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 ). | 2 | 2000–2002 |
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.