6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Elziegreen2 sentences2007Harrison, 891 So.2d at 233 -34 (quoting Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992)). 2005Harrison, 891 So. 2d at 233 -34 (quoting Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So. 2d 909, 910 (Miss. 1992)). | 2 | 2 |
McIntosh v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2004McIntosh v. Johnson, 649 So.2d 190, 193 (Miss.1995), overruled on other grounds, Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss.1996). 2001McIntosh v. Johnson, 649 So.2d 190, 193 (Miss. 1995), overruled on other grounds, Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 1996). | 2 | 2 |
Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc.green2 sentences2012Harrison v. Chan dler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So.2d 224, 232 (¶22) (Miss.2005). 2007Harrison, 891 So.2d at 233 -34 (quoting Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992)). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Norman v. Bucklew
green
2 sentences2004McIntosh v. Johnson, 649 So.2d 190, 193 (Miss.1995), overruled on other grounds, Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss.1996). 2001McIntosh v. Johnson, 649 So.2d 190, 193 (Miss. 1995), overruled on other grounds, Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 1996). | 2 | 2001–2004 |
Brown v. Felsen
green
2 sentences2003Under the principle known as “bar,”res judicata precludes claims which were actually litigated in a previous action. 12 Under the principle known as “merger,” res judicata prevents subsequent litigation of any claim that should have been litigated in a previous action.7 The United States Supreme Court has succinctly held, “[r]es judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.” Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 , 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2209 , 60 L.Ed. 2003Under the principle known as “bar,”res judicata precludes claims which were actually litigated in a previous action. 12 Under the principle known as “merger,” res judicata prevents subsequent litigation of any claim that should have been litigated in a previous action.7 The United States Supreme Court has succinctly held, “[r]es judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.” Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 , 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2209 , 60 L.Ed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.