set forth standard in Mississippi

1997In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), this Court set forth the factors to be considered by chancellors when making equitable divisions of marital property: 1.

1997In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), this Court set forth the factors to be considered by chancellors when making equitable divisions of marital property: 1.

2008In Moore v. State, 933 So.2d 910, 914 (Miss.2006), this Court set forth the standard of review for denial of a motion to suppress, stating: In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must determine whether the trial court's findings, considering the totality of the circumstances, are supported by substantial credible evidence.

2007In Moore v. State, 933 So. 2d 910, 914 (Miss. 2006), this Court set forth the standard of review for denial of a motion to suppress, stating: In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must determine whether the trial court's findings, considering the totality of the circumstances, are supported by substantial credible evidence.

2008Therefore, this Court has been "more permissive in granting standing to parties who seek review of governmental actions." In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue "when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided by law." State v. Quitman County, 807 So.2d 401, 405 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted).

2006Therefore, this Court has been "more permissive in granting standing to parties who seek review of governmental actions." In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue "when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided by law." State v. Quitman County, 807 So. 2d 401, 405 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted).

2008In Jones v. State, 904 So.2d 149, 153-154 (Miss.2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for JNOV: To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows "beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction." Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 88

2007In Jones v. State, 904 So. 2d 149, 153-154 (Miss. 2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for JNOV: To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows "beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where 3 the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction." Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 88

2008In Dinet v. Gavagnie, 948 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Miss.2007), this Court set forth the standard of review for Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as follows: When reviewing a trial court's decision to dismiss under Miss.

2006In Dinet v. Gavagnie, 948 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (Miss. 2007), this Court set forth the standard of review for Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as follows: When reviewing a trial court's decision to dismiss under Miss.

2008In Jones v. State, 904 So.2d 149, 153-154 (Miss.2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for JNOV: To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows "beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction." Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 88

2007In Jones v. State, 904 So. 2d 149, 153-154 (Miss. 2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for JNOV: To determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows "beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where 3 the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction." Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 88

2008In White v. Stewman, 932 So.2d 27, 32 (Miss.2006), this Court set forth the standard of review for the grant or denial of a JNOV.

2006In White v. Stewman, 932 So. 2d 27, 32 (Miss. 2006), this Court set forth the standard of review for the grant or denial of a JNOV.

2007Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss.2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. *639 v. Millette, 797 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001)).

2006Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So. 2d 129, 130 (Miss. 2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001)).

2007Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss.2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. *639 v. Millette, 797 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001)).

2006Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So. 2d 129, 130 (Miss. 2003) (citing O'Neal Steel, Inc. v. Millette, 797 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2001)).

2007In Titus v. Williams, 844 So.2d 459, 464 (Miss.2003), this Court set forth the standard of review for motions for summary judgment as follows: The standard for reviewing the granting or the denying of summary judgment is the same standard as is employed by the trial court under M.R.C.P. 56(c).

2005In Titus v. Williams, 844 So. 2d 459, 464 (Miss. 2003), this Court set forth the standard of review for motions for summary judgment as follows: The standard for reviewing the granting or the denying of summary judgment is the same standard as is employed by the trial court under M.R.C.P. 56(c).

2007In Hodges v. State, 912 So.2d 730, 758-59 (Miss.2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel as follows: Where ineffective assistance of counsel is alleged, "the benchmark [] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

1997In Hodges v. State, 912 So. 2d 730, 758-59 (Miss. 2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel as follows: Where ineffective assistance of counsel is alleged, "the benchmark [] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.

2007In Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, 908 So.2d 749, 753-54 (Miss.2005), this Court set forth the standard of review in summary judgment issues as follows: This Court applies a de novo standard of review on appeal from a denial of summary judgment by the trial court.

2005In Gorman-Rupp Co. v. Hall, 908 So. 2d 749, 753-54 (Miss. 2005), this Court set forth the standard of review in summary judgment issues as follows: This Court applies a de novo standard of review on appeal from a denial of summary judgment by the trial court.

2006This Court set forth the standard of review for findings of a circuit court judge in the case of Bray v. City of Meridian, 723 So.2d 1200, 1202 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) when it stated that factual findings made by a trial judge sitting without a jury will be upheld when they are supported by reasonable evidence found in the record and are not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous.

2003This Court set forth the standard of review for findings of a circuit court judge in the case of Bray v. City of Meridian, 723 So.2d 1200, 1202 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.

2006In Davis v. State, 897 So.2d 960, 964-64 (Miss.2004), a post-conviction relief case, this Court set forth the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel.

1998In Davis v. State, 897 So. 2d 960, 964-64 (Miss. 2004), a post-conviction relief case, this Court set forth the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel.

2006This Court set forth the standard of review for the grant or denial of jury instructions in Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 931 (Miss.2004): Jury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context.

2005This Court set forth the standard of review for the grant or denial of jury instructions in Ladnier v. State, 878 So. 2d 926, 931 (Miss. 2004): Jury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context.

2006In Shaw v. State, 915 So.2d 442, 445 (Miss.2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for admissibility of evidence as follows: Our standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence is very familiar.

2005In Shaw v. State, 915 So. 2d 442, 445 (Miss. 2005), this Court set forth the standard of review for admissibility of evidence as follows: Our standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence is very familiar.

2005This assignment of error is almost identical to that found in McFarland v. State, 707 So.2d 166 (Miss.1997). "[T]he presumption is that the trial judge properly performed his duties...." Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206, 1215 (Miss.1978).

2003This assignment of error is almost identical to that found in McFarland v. State, 707 So.2d 166 (Miss.1997). "[T]he presumption is that the trial judge properly performed his duties...." Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206, 1215 (Miss.1978).

2005This Court set forth the standard of review for the admission of photographs in Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180, 182-83 (Miss.2001).

2004This Court set forth the standard of review for the admission of photographs in Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180, 182-83 (Miss. 2001).

2005In Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 1241, 1249 (Miss.2001), this Court set forth the standard of review when swearing jurors is in issue: Jones next contends that the trial court failed to properly swear in the jury members, and therefore, the verdict is null an?d void.

2003In Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 1241, 1249 (Miss. 2001), this Court set forth the standard of review when swearing jurors is in issue: Jones next contends that the trial court failed to properly swear in the jury members, and therefore, the verdict is null and void.

2005This Court set forth the standard of review for the admission of photographs in Johnson v. State, 908 So.2d 100, 106 (Miss.2005).

2004This Court set forth the standard of review for the admission of photographs in Johnson v. State, 908 So.2d 100, 106 (Miss. 2005).

2004In the post-conviction relief case, Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1206 (Miss.2000), this Court set forth the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction for avoiding lawful arrest, stating: Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts.

1998In the post-conviction relief case,Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1206 (Miss. 2000), this Court set forth the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction for avoiding lawful arrest, stating: 91 Each case must be decided on its own peculiar facts.

1999Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss.1996): The standard for reviewing the granting or denying of summary judgment is the same standard as is employed by the trial court under rule 56(c).

1997Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996): The standard for reviewing the granting or denying of summary judgment is the same standard as is employed by the trial court under rule 56(c).

1997Burge v. State, 472 So.2d 392, 393 (Miss. 1985).

1993Burge v. State, 472 So.2d 392, 393 (Miss.1985).

2014In Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Miss. 1983), the court set forth the factors to be considered by the chancellor to determine child custody: [A]ge of the child; health [ ] and sex of the child; a determination of the parent that has had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; physical and mental health and age of the parents; emotional ties of parent and child; moral fitness of parents; the hom

2014In Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003, 1005 (Miss.1983), the court set forth the factors to be considered by the chancellor to determine child custody: [A]ge of the child; health [ ] and sex of the child; a determinatiori of the parent that has had the continuity of care prior to the separation; which has the best parenting skills and which has the willingness and capacity to provide primary child care; the employment of the parent and responsibilities of that employment; physical and mental health and age of the parents; emotional ties of parent and child; moral fitness of parents; the home

2007In Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States , 850 So.2d 78 , 82 (Miss. 2003), this Court set forth the standard of review for statute-of-limitations issues and held: This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law including statute of limitations issues.

2006In Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 850 So. 2d 78, 82 (Miss. 2003), this Court set forth the standard of review for statute-of-limitations issues and held: This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law including statute of limitations issues.