6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaw v. State, Department of Administration, Public Defender Agencygreen1 sentence2018See, e.g. , Shaw v. State , 816 P.2d 1358 , 1362 (Alaska 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Carrgreen1 sentence2007Under Mississippi law, "[a] claim of alienation of affection accrues when the alienation or loss of affection is finally accomplished." Carr, 784 So.2d at 229-30 (¶ 8) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Crouch v. General Electric Co.green1 sentence2007As Professors White and Summer have noted, “extension of the normal warranty period does not occur in the usual case, even though all warranties in a sense apply to future performance of goods.” They recognize, however, that such a warranty would arise in a case in which a seller gave a “lifetime guarantee” or one in which he, for example, “expressly warranted that an automobile would last for 24,000 miles or four years, whichever occurred first.” Crouch at 594 (citing J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Kubrick
green
2 sentences2003Still, if the plaintiff "fails to bring suit because he is incompetently or mistakenly told he does not have a case, we discern no sound reason for visiting the consequences of such on the defendant by delaying the accrual of the claim until the plaintiff is otherwise informed or himself determines to bring suit." United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 124 , 100 S.Ct. 352 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). ¶ 11. 2003Still, if the plaintiff "fails to bring suit because he is incompetently or mistakenly told he does not have a case, we discern no sound reason for visiting the consequences of such on the defendant by delaying the accrual of the claim until the plaintiff is otherwise informed or himself determines to bring suit." United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 124 , 100 S.Ct. 352 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). ¶ 11. | 2 | 1999–2003 |
Prescott v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass'n.
green
2 sentences1964Jur., 722 , Insurance, Sec. 366; Prescott v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass’n. (1938), 133 Fla. 510 , 183 So. 311 , 119 A.L.R. 525 . 1964Jur., 722 , Insurance, Sec. 366; Prescott v. Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Ass’n. (1938), 133 Fla. 510 , 183 So. 311 , 119 A.L.R. 525 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.