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 1990–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dock C-Food Ltd. v. Cherry (In Re Cherry)green2 sentences2001See In re Cherry, 78 B.R. 65, 70 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1987) (holding the automatic stay applies to all civil contempt proceedings not included in the exemptions to the automatic stay listed in § 362(b); no exception exists for civil contempt proceedings); see also In re Wiese, 1 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex.Ct.App.1999) (holding "All actions with respect to civil contempt orders are stayed until such time as the automatic stay has been lifted by the bankruptcy court."). 1999See Cherry v. Dock C-Food Ltd., 78 B.R. 65, 70 (E.D. | 2 | 2 |
Garcia v. Super Sagless Corp.green1 sentence2022The Act “gives the Commission wide latitude to promulgate rules” implementing its duties under the Act, Garcia, 975 So. 2d at 270 (¶11), as delineated in section 71-3-47: “Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, the details of practice and procedure in the settlement and adjudication of claims shall be determined by rules of the commission, the text of which shall be published and be readily available to interested parties.” In this case, Darty never filed a response to the status inquiry, in blatant disregard of Procedural Rule 7 and the warning that “[f]ailure of the party or the party | 1 | 1 |
Vaughn v. Ambrosinogreen1 sentence2006In Vaughn v. Ambrosino, 883 So.2d 1167, 1170-71 (¶¶ 11-12) (Miss.2004), the court reaffirmed the holding of Tharp , but went on to clarify the status of that defense, stating: It would be useful to pause here and distinguish a dangerous condition, from a claim that the defendant failed to warn of a dangerous condition. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Wiesegreen1 sentence2001See In re Cherry, 78 B.R. 65, 70 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa.1987) (holding the automatic stay applies to all civil contempt proceedings not included in the exemptions to the automatic stay listed in § 362(b); no exception exists for civil contempt proceedings); see also In re Wiese, 1 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Tex.Ct.App.1999) (holding "All actions with respect to civil contempt orders are stayed until such time as the automatic stay has been lifted by the bankruptcy court."). | 1 | 1 |
MacKbee v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Turner, 573 So.2d at 675 ; Mackbee, 575 So.2d at 41; Ladner, 584 So.2d at 759 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences1990Rather, custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner, (1977) 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 . 1990Rather, custody is in effect an adjudication of a child’s status, which falls under the status exception of Shaffer v. Heitner, (1977) 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 . | 2 | 1990–1990 |
Ladner v. State
green
1 sentence1996Turner, 573 So.2d at 675 ; Mackbee, 575 So.2d at 41; Ladner, 584 So.2d at 759 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Turner v. State
green
1 sentence1996Turner, 573 So.2d at 675 ; Mackbee, 575 So.2d at 41; Ladner, 584 So.2d at 759 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McCleskey v. Kemp
green
2 sentences1992Turner, decided December 12, 1990, altered the procedure for determining habitual offender status in death penalty cases: the status hearing must be conducted prior to the sentencing phase so that the jury will have before it all relevant information that "could `cause it to decline to impose the death sentence.'" Turner at 675 , quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 304 , 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1773 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). 1992Turner, decided December 12, 1990, altered the procedure for determining habitual offender status in death penalty cases: the status hearing must be conducted prior to the sentencing phase so that the jury will have before it all relevant information that "could `cause it to decline to impose the death sentence.'" Turner at 675 , quoting McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 304 , 107 S.Ct. 1756, 1773 , 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.