8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pulliam v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Pulliam v. State, 515 So.2d 945, 947 (Miss.1987) ("[I]f there are doubts as to the relevancy of an inquiry into credibility, interest, bias, or motive, those doubts should be resolved in favor of admissibility.") Pulliam , however, involved the latitude to be afforded an accused to cross-examine an informant. ¶ 57. 1994Pulliam v. State, 515 So. 2d 945, 947 (Miss. 1987) ("[I]f there are doubts as to the relevancy of an inquiry into credibility, interest, bias, or motive, those doubts should be resolved in favor of admissibility.") Pulliam, however, involved the latitude to be afforded an accused to cross-examine an informant. ¶57. | 2 | 3 |
Foster v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Brown cites Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111, 1118 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition *350 that the testimony of the State's ballistics expert, Byrd, would mislead the jury. 1994Brown cites Foster v. State, 508 So. 2d 1111, 1118 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that the testimony of the State's ballistics expert, Byrd, would mislead the jury. ¶45. | 2 | 2 |
Ornelas v. Southern Tire Mart, LLCgreen1 sentence2016Rule 35’s inclusion of the words “good cause” “indicate[s] that there must be greater showing of need under Rules 34 and 35 than under the other discovery rules.” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118 . “‘Good cause’ requires a showing that the examination could adduce 32 specific facts relevant to the cause of action and necessary to the defendant’s case.” Ornelas v. S. Tire Mart LLC, 292 F.R.D. 388, 391 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
Stromas v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Stromas v. State, 618 So.2d 116, 118 (Miss. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miskelley v. State
green
2 sentences1988Pulliam, 515 So.2d at 947 , Miskelley, 480 So.2d at 1108 . 1987Miskelley v. State, 480 So.2d 1104 (Miss. 1985). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
Schlagenhauf v. Holder
green
2 sentences2016“The specific requirement of good cause would be meaningless if good cause could be sufficiently established by merely showing that the desired materials are relevant, for the relevancy standard has already been imposed by Rule 26(b).” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118 . 2016Rule 35’s inclusion of the words “good cause” “indicate[s] that there must be greater showing of need under Rules 34 and 35 than under the other discovery rules.” Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118 . “‘Good cause’ requires a showing that the examination could adduce 32 specific facts relevant to the cause of action and necessary to the defendant’s case.” Ornelas v. S. Tire Mart LLC, 292 F.R.D. 388, 391 (S.D. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.