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 2001–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Conklin v. Boyd Gaming Corp.green2 sentences2013The question is whether the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice was, as Buckley argues, “too excessive a sanction for a discovery violation.” In Conklin v. Boyd Gaming Corp-, 75 So.3d 589, 592 (¶8) (Miss.Ct.App.2011), this Court recently stated: [T]he trial court should only dismiss a cause of action because of discovery violations under the most extreme circumstances. 2012The question is whether the circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice was, as Buckley argues, “too excessive a sanction for a discovery violation.” In Conklin v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 75 So.3d 589, 592 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011), this Court recently stated: [T]he trial court should only dismiss a cause of action because of discovery violations under the most extreme circumstances. | 2 | 2 |
Robert Patrick Terrell v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2025Box set forth “procedures [to] apply when the State attempts to enter previously undisclosed evidence over the defendant’s objection.” Id. 9 witnesses in his favor.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025The supreme court has cautioned that when imposing a sanction for a discovery violation, “[t]he court cannot disregard the fundamental character of the defendant’s right to offer the testimony of 3 Rule 17.9 “adopted the procedures set forth in Box v. State, 437 So. 2d 19, 23-24 (Miss. 1983) (Robertson, J., specially concurring).” Terrell v. State, 237 So. 3d 717, 730 (¶51) (Miss. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Box v. Stategreen1 sentence2025The supreme court has cautioned that when imposing a sanction for a discovery violation, “[t]he court cannot disregard the fundamental character of the defendant’s right to offer the testimony of 3 Rule 17.9 “adopted the procedures set forth in Box v. State, 437 So. 2d 19, 23-24 (Miss. 1983) (Robertson, J., specially concurring).” Terrell v. State, 237 So. 3d 717, 730 (¶51) (Miss. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Eaton Corp. v. Frisbygreen2 sentences2018Ct. App. 2013); see also Eaton Corp., 133 So. 3d at 747 (¶45). 2018Ct. App. 2013) ; see also Eaton Corp. , 133 So.3d at 747 (¶ 45). | 1 | 1 |
Avare v. Gulfside Casino Partnershipgreen2 sentences2018We will affirm a trial court’s dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation “unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing [the] relevant factors.” Avare v. Gulfside Casino P’ship, 178 So. 3d 796, 798 (¶4) (Miss. 2018We will affirm a trial court's dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation "unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing [the] relevant factors." Avare v. Gulfside Casino P'ship , 178 So.3d 796 , 798 (¶ 4) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Preston Overton v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2017See Overton v. State , 195 So.3d 715 (Miss. 2016) (reversing for a new trial after finding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a defense witness as a sanction for a discovery violation); Willard v. State , 219 So.3d 569 , 574-76 (¶¶ 19-29) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Whitegreen1 sentence2013According to Pierce “the decision whether to impose sanctions for a discovery abuse is vested in the trial court’s discretion.” Id. at 1388 (citing White v. White, 509 So.2d 205, 207 (Miss.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Patino
green
2 sentences2003The plaintiffs rely on Thompson v. Patino, 784 So.2d 220 (Miss.2001) wherein we held that the striking of an expert designation was considered to be too harsh a sanction for a discovery violation. 2001The plaintiffs rely on Thompson v. Patino, 784 So.2d 220 (Miss. 2001) wherein we held that the striking of an expert designation was considered to be too harsh a sanction for a discovery violation. | 2 | 2001–2003 |
Chad Willard v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2017See Overton v. State , 195 So.3d 715 (Miss. 2016) (reversing for a new trial after finding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding a defense witness as a sanction for a discovery violation); Willard v. State , 219 So.3d 569 , 574-76 (¶¶ 19-29) (Miss. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Pierce v. Heritage Properties, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013According to Pierce “the decision whether to impose sanctions for a discovery abuse is vested in the trial court’s discretion.” Id. at 1388 (citing White v. White, 509 So.2d 205, 207 (Miss.1987)). 2013The seminal case on dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation under Rule 37(b)(2) is Pierce, 688 So.2d 1385 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.