51 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ethridge v. Ethridgegreen2 sentences2001Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Miss. 1995). 2001Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1145-46 (Miss.1995). | 3 | 3 |
Ferguson v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2013In Ferguson , the court stated that a spouse will be deemed to have materially contributed “by virtue of domestic services and/or earned income which both parties have enjoyed rather than invested[.]” Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 934 . 1997See Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 929 . | 2 | 3 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2002According to Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281, 1287 (Miss.1994), to equitably *612 divide the assets pursuant to a divorce, a chancellor is directed as follows: Division of marital assets is now governed under the law as stated in Hemsley and Ferguson . 2000According to Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281, 1287 (Miss. 1994), to equitably divide the assets pursuant to a divorce, a chancellor is directed as follows: Division of marital assets is now governed under the law as stated in Hemsley and Ferguson. | 2 | 2 |
Morrow v. Morrowgreen2 sentences1996The standard applied to determine manifest error is well-settled in our jurisprudence. "[T]he Supreme Court will not reverse a chancellor's findings of fact where the Court finds those facts by substantial credible evidence in the record unless the chancellor committed manifest error." Morrow v. Morrow, 591 So.2d 829 (Miss. 1991). 1994The standard applied to determine manifest error is well-settled in our jurisprudence. "[T]he Supreme Court will not reverse a chancellor's findings of fact where the Court finds those facts by substantial credible evidence in the record unless the chancellor committed manifest error." Morrow v. Morrow, 591 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 1991). | 1 | 3 |
Graham v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2009“Alimony awards are within the chancellor’s discretion, and we may not reverse unless we find the chancellor committed manifest error in his findings of fact and abused his discretion.” Graham v. Graham, 767 So.2d 277, 280 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2000). 2002"Alimony awards are within the chancellor's discretion, and we may not reverse unless we find the chancellor committed manifest error in his findings of fact and abused his discretion." Graham v. Graham, 767 So.2d 277 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). | 1 | 2 |
In re the Guardianship of the Estate of Lewisgreen1 sentence2021She contends that the chancellor committed manifest error or, in the alternative, abused her discretion. ¶16. “[T]he purpose of guardianships and conservatorships is to provide an amount of protection to an individual who is, for a variety of reasons, unable fully to protect himself.” In re Guardianship of Estate of Lewis, 45 So. 3d 313, 318 (¶15) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Story v. Allengreen2 sentences2018Id. at 298-99 (¶ 21) (emphasis added). ¶ 36. 2018Id. at 299 (¶ 22) (emphasis added); accord Strait , 155 So.3d at 207-08 (¶¶ 39-40, 44). ¶ 37. | 1 | 1 |
Travis Strait v. Kristy Lorenzgreen1 sentence2018Id. at 299 (¶ 22) (emphasis added); accord Strait , 155 So.3d at 207-08 (¶¶ 39-40, 44). ¶ 37. | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Williamsongreen2 sentences2015See Williamson v. Williamson, 81 So.3d 262, 275 (¶¶ 23-25) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (reversing an alimony award because the chancellor had not completed an equitable division of the marital property prior to considering alimony). 2015See Williamson v. Williamson, 81 So. 3d 262, 275 (¶¶23-25) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Bredemeier v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2014“Unless the chancellor is manifestly wrong, his decision regarding attorney[’s] fees will not be disturbed on appeal.” Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So.2d 770, 778 (Miss.1997) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Luse v. Lusegreen1 sentence2014Id. at 663 (¶ 12). | 1 | 1 |
Haralson v. Haralsongreen1 sentence2013Because “the chancellor exceeded [her] statutory authority in granting a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we in effect ‘wipe the slate clean and put the parties back where they were prior to trial.’ ” Massingill, 594 So.2d at 1179 (quoting Haralson v. Haralson, 483 So.2d 378, 380 (Miss.1986)). | 1 | 1 |
United Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Mosleygreen1 sentence2011An appellant is required “to provide authority in support of an assignment of error.” Taylor v. Kennedy, 914 So.2d 1260, 1262 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing United Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. Mosley, 835 So.2d 88, 92 (Miss.Ct.App.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2011An appellant is required “to provide authority in support of an assignment of error.” Taylor v. Kennedy, 914 So.2d 1260, 1262 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing United Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. Mosley, 835 So.2d 88, 92 (Miss.Ct.App.2002)). | 1 | 1 |
McKee v. McKeegreen1 sentence2009Jay argues that the chancellor should not have awarded attorney’s fees to Lisa without first conducting an analysis of the factors set forth in McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764, 767 (Miss.1982). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Last Will and Testament of Lynngreen1 sentence2008Miles v. Miles, 949 So.2d 774, 778 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting In re Will of Lynn, 878 So.2d 1052, 1055 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Miles v. Milesgreen1 sentence2008Miles v. Miles, 949 So.2d 774, 778 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (quoting In re Will of Lynn, 878 So.2d 1052, 1055 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Veselits v. Cruthirdsgreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So. 2d 1312, 1315-16 (Miss. 1989) (affirming custody award to third party and chancellor’s refusal to terminate parental rights). 8 On the record before us, we cannot say the chancellor committed manifest error in refusing to terminate Tony’s parental rights. | 1 | 1 |
| Lambert v. Lambertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Waynesboro v. McMichaelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Passmore v. Passmoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Blackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Powers v. Powersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Daughtrey v. Daughtreygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mount v. Mountgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brennan v. Brennangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Collins by Smith v. McMurrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mullins v. Ratcliffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martin v. Adams, Et Ux.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Purvis v. Purvis
green
2 sentences2011Purvis, 657 So.2d at 797 . ¶ 18. 2005Purvis, 657 So. 2d at 797 . ¶18. | 2 | 2005–2011 |
Albright v. Albright
green
2 sentences2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doemer, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). 2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doerner, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Mabus v. Mabus
green
2 sentences2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doemer, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). 2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doerner, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Riley v. Doerner
green
2 sentences2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doemer, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). 2007The appellant argues that the chancellor committed manifest error when he misapplied Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So.2d 815 (Miss.2003), Riley v. Doerner, 677 So.2d 740 (Miss.1996), and Albright v. Albright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss.1983). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Kleyle v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2003Kleyle v. Mitchell, 736 So.2d 456 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citations omitted). ¶ 6. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Phillips v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2000Id. 1998Id. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Cathey v. McPHAIL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
green
1 sentence2018Inc. , 989 So.2d 494 , 495 (¶ 3) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Nichols v. Nichols
green
1 sentence2014Specifically, Jay argues that the chancellor failed to consider the standards set forth in Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726 (Miss.1971). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Massingill v. Massingill
green
1 sentence2013Because “the chancellor exceeded [her] statutory authority in granting a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, we in effect ‘wipe the slate clean and put the parties back where they were prior to trial.’ ” Massingill, 594 So.2d at 1179 (quoting Haralson v. Haralson, 483 So.2d 378, 380 (Miss.1986)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Troxel v. Granville
green
2 sentences2011The Walleys argue that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a “presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 63 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). 2011The Walleys argue that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a “presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 63 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Armstrong v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2008Kelli submits that the chancellor failed to adequately weigh each of the factors as required in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss.1993). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Barnett v. Oathout
green
1 sentence2006Gloria contends the chancellor committed manifest error by failing to consider any reasonable alternatives to the termination of parental rights, citing Barnett v. Oathout, 883 So.2d 563 (Miss.2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Crow v. Crow green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Newman v. Newman green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.