manifest error in Mississippi

2016Mueller counters that Mabus’s claims lack substantiation as the record fails to indicate any instance of bias by the AJ. ¶ 14. “[T]he supreme court has clarified that appellate court[s] must apply the manifest-error standard when reviewing a judge’s refusal to recuse himself.” Sullivan v. Maddox, 122 So.3d 75, 81 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So.2d 770, 774 (Miss.1997)).

2016“This Court reviews a judge’s refusal to recuse himself using the manifest error standard.” 12 Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So. 2d 770, 774 (Miss. 1997) (citing Davis v. Neshoba Cnty.

2000"The chancellor's findings of fact are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test." Vance v. Lincoln County Dept. of Public Welfare by Weathers, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991).

2000“The chancellor’s findings of fact are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” Vance v. Lincoln County Dept. of Public Welfare by Weathers, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991).

2013“Appellate review in a case to terminate parental rights is limited to reviewing the chancellor’s findings under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” A.C.W. v. J.C.W., 957 So.2d 1042, 1044 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing S.N.C. v. J.R.D., 755 So.2d 1077, 1081 (¶ 11) (Miss.2000)).

2010“The chancellor’s findings of fact are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” S.N.C. v. J.R.D., Jr., 755 So.2d 1077, 1080 (¶ 7) (Miss.2000) (quoting Vance v. Lincoln County Dep’t of Pub.

2006Welfare, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991) (citing Bryant v. Cameron, 473 So.2d 174, 179 (Miss. 1985); Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss.1989)).

2006Welfare, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991) (citing Bryant v. Cameron, 473 So.2d 174, 179 (Miss.1985); Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss.1989)).

2006Welfare, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991) (citing Bryant v. Cameron, 473 So.2d 174, 179 (Miss. 1985); Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss.1989)).

2006Welfare, 582 So.2d 414, 417 (Miss.1991) (citing Bryant v. Cameron, 473 So.2d 174, 179 (Miss.1985); Veselits v. Cruthirds, 548 So.2d 1312, 1316 (Miss.1989)).

1998This Court in Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 553 (Miss.1991) (quoting Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Sklar, 555 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1990)), stated, "[w]hen the determination is one of law rather than fact, `the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" I.

1997This Court in Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 553 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Sklar, 555 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Miss. 1990)), stated, "[w]hen the determination is one of law rather than fact, 'the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" I.

2020In termination-of-parental-rights cases, we review a chancellor’s fact findings “under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test” and will not reverse if there is “credible proof [] to support the chancellor’s finding of fact by clear and convincing evidence.” Chism v. Bright, 152 So. 3d 318, 322 (¶12) (Miss. 2014) (quoting W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So. 2d 31, 34 (¶7) (Miss. 2007)).

2018The county court's "findings of fact concerning the termination of parental rights are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence standard of review." W.A.S. v. A.L.G. , 949 So.2d 31 , 34 (¶ 7) (Miss. 2007).

2002This Court has also determined that "[w]hen the [chancellor's] determination is one of law rather than fact, `the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Miss.1998) (quoting Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 552-53 (Miss.1991)).

1999This Court has also determined that "[w]hen the [chancellor's] determination is one of law rather than fact, 'the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So. 2d 1084, 1085 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So. 2d 550, 552-53 (Miss. 1991)).

2026“Manifest error is that error which is unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable.” Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So. 3d 632, 636 (¶11) (Miss. 2010) (citing Magee v. Magee, 661 So. 2d 1117, 1122 (Miss. 1995)).

2024“Manifest error is that error which is unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable.” Collins v. Collins, 112 So. 3d 428, 431 (¶8) (Miss. 2013) (citing Magee v. Magee, 661 So. 2d 1117, 1122 (Miss. 1995)).

2008It is well established that “[t]he chancellor’s findings of fact concerning the termination of parental rights are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence standard of review.” W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So.2d 31, 34 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007) (citing K.D.F. v. J.L.H., 933 So.2d 971, 975 (¶ 14) (Miss.2006)).

2008It is well established that "[t]he chancellor's findings of fact concerning the termination of parental rights are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence standard of review." W.A.S. v. A.L.G., 949 So.2d 31, 34 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007) (citing K.D.F. v. J.L.H., 933 So.2d 971, 975 (¶ 14) (Miss.2006)).

2000In Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So.2d 794 (Miss.1994), we stated: This Court is not bound by the manifest error rule when the appeal involves a conviction of criminal contempt.

1997In Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So.2d 794 (Miss. 1994), we stated: This Court is not bound by the manifest error rule when the appeal involves a conviction of criminal contempt.

2013“Appellate review in a case to terminate parental rights is limited to reviewing the chancellor’s findings under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” A.C.W. v. J.C.W., 957 So.2d 1042, 1044 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing S.N.C. v. J.R.D., 755 So.2d 1077, 1081 (¶ 11) (Miss.2000)).

2009“Appellate review in a case to terminate parental rights is limited to reviewing the chancellor’s findings under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” A.C.W. v. J.C.W., 957 So.2d 1042, 1044 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing S.N.C. v. J.R.D., 755 So.2d 1077, 1081 (¶ 11) (Miss.2000)).

2004If the contempt is civil, the proper standard utilized for review is the manifest error rule." Dennis v. Dennis, 824 So.2d 604, 608 (Miss.2002). ¶ 26.

2002If the contempt is civil, the proper standard utilized for review is the manifest error rule." Dennis v. Dennis, 824 So.2d 604, 608 (Miss. 2002). ¶26.

1999Cooper v. Crabb, 587 So.2d 236, 239 (Miss.1991); Holliman v. Charles L.

1997Cooper v. Crabb, 587 So.2d 236, 239 (Miss.1991); Holliman v. Charles L.

2005Hosp., 611 So.2d 904, 905 (Miss.1992)) (where this Court stated: "This Court reviews a judge's refusal to recuse himself using the manifest error standard").

2003Hosp., 611 So. 2d 904, 905 (Miss. 1992)) (where this Court stated: “This Court reviews a judge’s refusal to recuse himself using the manifest error standard”).

2005Devices, Inc., 624 So.2d at 989 .

2003Devices, Inc., 624 So. 2d at 989 .

2015Vaughn v. Vaughn, 56 So.3d 1283, 1288 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). *980 A. Newly Acquired Debt ¶ 11.

2015Vaughn v. Vcuughn, 56 So.3d 1283, 1288 (¶ 17).

2011Estate of Griffith, 30 So.3d at 1193 (citing Goode v. Village of Wood-green Homeowners Ass’n, 662 So.2d 1064, 1070-71 (Miss.1995)).

2010Goode v. Village of Woodgreen Homeowners Ass’n, 662 So.2d 1064, 1070-71 (Miss.1995) (ruling that the Court applies the standard of manifest error to findings of fact in a will contest).

2003“When the determination is one of law rather than fact, ‘the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the [trial judge’s] findings.” Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1086 (Miss.1998) (“Tisdale I”).

2002This Court has also determined that "[w]hen the [chancellor's] determination is one of law rather than fact, `the familiar manifest error/substantial evidence rule does not prevent this Court from conducting a de novo review of the chancellor's finding.'" Tisdale v. Clay, 728 So.2d 1084, 1085 (Miss.1998) (quoting Stevenson v. Stevenson, 579 So.2d 550, 552-53 (Miss.1991)).

2025“The standard of manifest error is high[.]” Scott v. State, 8 So. 3d 855, 861 (¶22) (Miss. 2008). ¶49.

2019“The standard of manifest error is high, and this Court cannot reverse unless the trial judge’s ruling has gone against the substantial weight of the evidence.” Id.

1990Boggs v. Eaton, 379 So.2d 520, 522 (Miss. 1980); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Dixie Contractors, Inc., 375 So.2d 1202, 1206 (Miss. 1979); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1971); see also, Pullman-Standard, a Division of Pullman, Inc. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66, 79 (1982).

1989Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Dixie Contractors, Inc., 375 So.2d 1202, 1206 (Miss. 1979); S & A Realty Co. v. Hilburn, 249 So.2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1971).

2024“The standard of review for property partition cases is whether this Court finds manifest error in the decision of the chancellor, only then will this Court reverse the findings of the chancellor.” Lynn v. Lynn (In re Last Will & Testament of Lynn), 878 So. 2d 1052, 1055 (¶11) (Miss.

2009“The standard of review for property partition cases is whether this Court finds manifest error in the decision of the chancellor, only then will this Court reverse the findings of the chancellor.” Georgian v. Harrington, 990 So.2d 813, 815-16 (¶7) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Lynn v. Lynn (In re Will of Lynn), 878 So.2d 1052, 1055 (¶11) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).

2021Ct. App. 2019) (quoting C.W. v. Lamar County, 250 So. 3d 1248, 1252 (¶9) (Miss. 2018)). “[W]hen reviewing a citation for criminal contempt,” this Court does not apply the manifest-error rule but instead “will proceed ab initio and will determine on the record whether the person is guilty of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting C.W., 250 So. 3d at 1252 (¶9)). “[T]he party asserting that contemptuous conduct has occurred” bears “[t]he burden of 9 proof[,]” and “in a proceeding for criminal contempt, evidence of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Spore v. State, 21

2017In reviewing matters that involve a conviction for criminal contempt, “[t]his Court is not bound by the manifest error rule[; i]n-stead, this Court proceeds ab initio to determine whether the record proves the appellant guilty of contempt beyond a rea *361 sonable doubt.” Spore v. State, 214 So.3d 223, 226 (Miss. 2017) (quoting In re Smith, 926 So.2d 878, 885 (Miss. 2006)).

2023“If that standard is met to the chancellor’s satisfaction, the judgment below will not be disturbed unless we find a manifest error of law or fact.” Bodne v. King, 835 So. 2d 52, 58 (¶19) (Miss. 2003) (citing Chaffin v. Chaffin, 437 So. 2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1983)).

2003Chaffin v. Chaffin, 437 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss.1983). ¶ 20.

2022Busching v. Griffin, 542 So. 2d 860, 863 (Miss. 1989); see also Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, 557 So. 2d 780,784 (Miss. 1990); Cole v. National Life Insurance Co., 549 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Miss. 1989); UHS-Qualicaare Inc. v. Gulf Coast Community Hospital Inc., 525 So. 2d 746, 754 (Miss. 1987). 11 children with primary physical custody to the mother, Elizabeth Ann Lamy, with custody for the father, Phillip Joseph Lamy, as set out herein.

1990Cole v. National Life Insurance Co., 549 So.2d 1301, 1303 (Miss. 1989); Boggs v. Eaton, 379 So.2d 520, 522 (Miss. 1980).

2014Chim v. State, 972 So.2d 601, 607 (Miss.2008) (citations omitted).

2013Id. at 605 (¶ 13). ¶ 14.

2024The [judge]’s findings of fact are viewed under the manifest error/substantial credible evidence test.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Vance v. Lincoln Cnty.

2007G.Q.A v. Harrison County Dep’t of Human Servs., 771 So.2d 331, 335 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2000).