6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oscar Hines v. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. General Electric Company, Monsanto Company, and Penn Central Corporationgreen1 sentence2008Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 262, 270 (3rd Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). [22] The defendants' alternative arguments about why their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was properly granted are, in my view, without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Dancer v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In Dancer v. State, 721 So.2d 583, 586 (ś 11) (Miss.1998), the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of a waiver of rights and confession by a thirteen-year-old mentally-slow defendant. 2006The Dancer court, quoting McGowan v. State, 706 So.2d 231, 235 (ś 19) (1997), held that "[w]hether there was an intelligent, knowing and voluntary waiver is essentially a factual inquiry to be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances." Dancer, 721 So.2d at 587 (ś 19). | 1 | 1 |
McGowan v. Stategreen1 sentence2006The Dancer court, quoting McGowan v. State, 706 So.2d 231, 235 (ś 19) (1997), held that "[w]hether there was an intelligent, knowing and voluntary waiver is essentially a factual inquiry to be determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances." Dancer, 721 So.2d at 587 (ś 19). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2002Id. | 3 | 2001–2003 |
Giles v. California
green
1 sentence2019Giles, 554 U.S. at 367 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. MICHELLE CHERRY
green
1 sentence2019With respect to Jones, the State asserts that it presented sufficient evidence at the admissibility hearing to allow the trial court to infer that Holland, with Buchanan’s assistance, killed Keys for the purpose of preventing him from testifying at trial and that Jones is liable for “acquiescing” in procuring Keys’s unavailability under the conspiratorial responsibility theory announced in United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir. 2000). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.