has a limited standard in Mississippi

2023“When considering the decisions of a chancellor on appeal, this Court has a limited standard of review.” In re Conservatorship of Est. of Loyd, 868 So. 2d 363, 367 (¶11) (Miss. 9 Ct. App. 2003) (citing McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057, 1063 (¶21) (Miss. 2000)).

2015“When considering the decisions of a chancellor on appeal, this Court has a limited standard of review.” In re Conservatorship of Estate of Loyd, 868 So.2d 363, 367 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing McNeil v. Hester, 753 So.2d 1057, 1063 (¶ 21) (Miss.2000)).

2022Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Ellison v. Meek, 820 So. 2d 730, 734 (¶11) (Miss.

2009“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Ellison v. Meek, 820 So.2d 730, 734 (¶11) (Miss.Ct.App.2002).

2016This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases, and “[u]nder the standard of review utilized to review a [chancellorj’s findings of fact, particularly in the areas óf divorce, alimony[,] and ‘child support [the appellate court] will not overturn the [chancellor’s decision] on appeal unless [his] findings were manifestly wrong.” In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood, 35 So.3d 507, 512 (¶ 8) (Miss.2010).

2016This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases, and “[u]nder the standard of review utilized to review a [chancellor]’s findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony[,] and child support, [the appellate court] will not overturn the [chancellor’s decision] on appeal unless [his] findings were manifestly wrong.” In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood, 35 So. 3d 507, 512 (¶8) (Miss. 2010).

2023“When considering the decisions of a chancellor on appeal, this Court has a limited standard of review.” In re Conservatorship of Est. of Loyd, 868 So. 2d 363, 367 (¶11) (Miss. 9 Ct. App. 2003) (citing McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057, 1063 (¶21) (Miss. 2000)).

2015“When considering the decisions of a chancellor on appeal, this Court has a limited standard of review.” In re Conservatorship of Estate of Loyd, 868 So.2d 363, 367 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (citing McNeil v. Hester, 753 So.2d 1057, 1063 (¶ 21) (Miss.2000)).

2021This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic relations cases, and “under the standard of review utilized to review a chancellor’s findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony and child support, this Court will not overturn the chancellor’s decision on appeal unless his findings were manifestly wrong.” Nelson v. Nelson, 271 So. 3d 613, 616 (¶9) (Miss.

2020“This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases, and ‘under 4 the standard of review utilized to review a chancellor’s findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony[,] and child support, this Court will not overturn the chancellor’s decision on appeal unless his findings were manifestly wrong.’” Nelson v. Nelson, 271 So. 3d 613, 616-17 (¶9) (Miss.

2016“The distribution of marital assets in a divorce will be affirmed if ‘it is supported by substantial credible evidence.’” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 285 (¶26) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So. 2d 385, 393-94 (¶32) (Miss. 2008)).

2016“The distribution of marital assets in a divorce will be affirmed if ‘it is supported by substantial credible evidence.’ ” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So.3d 274, 285 (¶ 26) (Miss.2009) (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d 385, 393-94 (¶ 32) (Miss.2008)).

2016“The distribution of marital assets in a divorce will be affirmed if ‘it is supported by substantial credible evidence.’ ” Lowrey v.. Lowrey, 25 So,3d 274, 285 (¶ 26) (Miss.2009) (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d 385, 393-94 (¶32) (Miss.2008)).

2016“The distribution of marital assets in a divorce will be affirmed if ‘it is supported by substantial credible evidence.’” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 285 (¶26) (Miss. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So. 2d 385, 393-94 (¶32) (Miss. 2008)).

2016“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Ballard v. Commercial Bank of DeKalb, 991 So. 2d 1201 , 1204- 05 (Miss. 2008).

2016“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Ballard v. Commercial Bank of DeKalb, 991 So.2d 1201, 1204-05 (Miss.2008).

2012Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So.2d 190, 192 (¶ 10) (Miss.2001).

2009Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So.2d 190, 192 (Miss.2001).

2022“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Frazier v. Frazier, 31 So. 3d 1218, 1219-20 (¶4) (Miss.

2022“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Frazier v. Frazier, 31 So. 3d 1218, 1219 (¶4) (Miss.

2022If supported by substantial evidence, a chancellor’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless “the chancellor abused [her] discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Varnell v. Rogers, 198 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (¶7) (Miss.

2021If supported by substantial evidence, a chancellor’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless “the chancellor abused [her] discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Varnell v. Rogers, 198 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (¶7) (Miss.

2022“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So. 3d 210, 215 (¶8) (Miss. 2014).

2021“This Court has a limited standard of review in examining and considering the decisions of a chancellor.” Ravenstein v. Ravenstein, 167 So. 3d 210, 215 (¶8) (Miss. 2014).

2015“We will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Taylor v. Bell, 87 So.3d 1134, 1137 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Buford v. Logue, 832 So.2d 594, 600 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2002)).

2012“We will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Taylor v. Bell, 87 So.3d 1134, 1137 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Buford v. Logue, 832 So.2d 594, 600 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citation omitted)).

2015“We will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Taylor v. Bell, 87 So.3d 1134, 1137 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Buford v. Logue, 832 So.2d 594, 600 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2002)).

2012“We will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Taylor v. Bell, 87 So.3d 1134, 1137 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Buford v. Logue, 832 So.2d 594, 600 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citation omitted)).

2011In re Enlarging, Extending and Defining Corp. Limits and Boundaries of City of Meridian, 992 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Miss.2008).

2009In re Enlarging, Extending and Defining Corp. Limits and Boundaries of City of Meridian, 992 So. 2d 1113, 1116 (Miss. 2008).

2009In the case of a divorce decree, facts will be viewed “in a light most favorable to the appellee.” Bodne v. King, 835 So.2d 52, 57 (¶ 16) (Miss.2003) (citing Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 888 (¶13) (Miss.1998)).

2009In the case of a divorce decree, facts will be viewed "in a light most favorable to the appellee." Bodne v. King, 835 So.2d 52, 57 (¶ 16) (Miss.2003) (citing Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 888 (¶ 13) (Miss. 1998)).

2009In the case of a divorce decree, facts will be viewed “in a light most favorable to the appellee.” Bodne v. King, 835 So.2d 52, 57 (¶ 16) (Miss.2003) (citing Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 888 (¶13) (Miss.1998)).

2009In the case of a divorce decree, facts will be viewed "in a light most favorable to the appellee." Bodne v. King, 835 So.2d 52, 57 (¶ 16) (Miss.2003) (citing Richard v. Richard, 711 So.2d 884, 888 (¶ 13) (Miss. 1998)).

2009This Court has a limited standard of review of a chancellor’s decision in domestic relation matters, reversing only in cases where “the chancellor abused his or her discretion, was manifestly in error, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Engel v. Engel, 920 So.2d 505, 508 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted).

2009This Court has a limited standard of review of a chancellor's decision in domestic relation matters, reversing only in cases where "the chancellor abused his or her discretion, was manifestly in error, or applied an erroneous legal standard." Engel v. Engel, 920 So.2d 505, 508 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted).

2020Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Ilsley v. Ilsley, 160 So. 3d 1177, 1181 (¶9) (Miss.

2018This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases, and "under the standard of review utilized to review a chancellor's findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony and child support, this Court will not overturn the chancellor's decision on appeal unless his findings were manifestly wrong." Ilsley v. Ilsley , 160 So.3d 1177 , 1181 (¶ 9) (Miss.

2018"This Court has a limited standard of review in appeals from the chancery court." Jones v. Graphia , 95 So.3d 751 , 753 (¶ 6) (Miss.

2016Jones v. Graphia, 95 So.3d 751, 753 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012).

2026“This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases[.]” Hearn v. Hearn, 191 So. 3d 129, 132 (¶10) (Miss.

2023Myrick v. Myrick, 186 So. 3d 429, 431 (¶10) (Miss.

2023This Court has recognized that “findings of fact made by a chancellor may not be set aside or disturbed upon appeal if they are supported by substantial[] credible evidence.” Carter v. Carter, 204 So. 3d 747, 756 (¶37) (Miss. 2016).

2016This Court will not disturb the findings of the chancellor unless the chancellor was “manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” 11 Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Miss. 1990).

2016This Court will not disturb the findings of the chancellor unless the chancellor was “manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard.” Tinnin v. First United Bank of Miss., 570 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1990).

2016We will affirm a chancellor’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous, manifestly wrong, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Thweatt v. Thweatt, 4 So.3d 1085, 1088 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625-26 (¶ 8) (Miss.2002)).

2016We will affirm a chancellor’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous, manifestly wrong, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Thweatt v. Thweatt, 4 So.3d 1085, 1088 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625-26 (¶ 8) (Miss.2002)).

2014This Court has a limited standard of review in domestic-relations cases, and “[u]nder the standard of review utilized to review a [chancellorjs findings of fact, particularly in the areas of divorce, alimony and child support, this Court will not overturn the [chancellor’s decision] on appeal unless [his] findings were manifestly wrong.” In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood, 35 So.3d 507, 512 (¶ 8) (Miss.2010) (quoting Duncan v. Duncan, 774 So.2d 418, 419 (¶4) (Miss.2000)).

2014Arrington v. Arrington, 80 So.3d 160, 164 (¶11) (Miss.Ct.App.2012).

2012Cook v. Robinson, 924 So.2d 592, 594 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Ellison v. Meek, 820 So.2d 730, 734 (¶ 11) (Miss.2002)).

2008We will not disturb a circuit court judge’s decision to deny a motion for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) unless the facts and inferences “point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.” Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270, 275-76 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 965 So.2d 1023, 1030 (¶ 25) (Miss.2007)).

2008We will not disturb a circuit court judge's decision to deny a motion for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) unless the facts and inferences "point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty." Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270, 275-76 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 965 So.2d 1023 , *705 1030(¶ 25) (Miss.2007)).