Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lane v. Oustaletgreen2 sentences2008Thus, Pierce contends Cook's claim falls within the ambits of a legal-malpractice claim, and "[c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice." Byrd v. Bowie, 933 So.2d 899, 904 (Miss.2006) (quoting Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So.2d 92, 99 (Miss.2004)). ¶ 15. 2006Thus, Pierce contends Cook’s claim falls within the ambits of a legal-malpractice claim, and “[c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice.” Byrd v. Bowie, 933 So. 2d 899, 904 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So. 2d 92, 99 (Miss. 2004)). ¶15. | 2 | 2 |
Hickox by and Through Hickox v. Hollemangreen2 sentences2008Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 635 (Miss.1987); Dean v. Conn, 419 So.2d 148, 150 (Miss.1982) (expert testimony ordinarily is necessary to support an action for legal malpractice). ¶ 10. 2008However, we acknowledged in Byrd that this Court had previously "carved out some exceptions to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a legal malpractice claim." Byrd, 933 So.2d at 904 (citing Hickox, 502 So.2d at 635 ; Thompson, 186 So.2d at 759 ). | 2 | 2 |
Byrd v. Bowiegreen2 sentences2008Thus, Pierce contends Cook's claim falls within the ambits of a legal-malpractice claim, and "[c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice." Byrd v. Bowie, 933 So.2d 899, 904 (Miss.2006) (quoting Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So.2d 92, 99 (Miss.2004)). ¶ 15. 2006Thus, Pierce contends Cook’s claim falls within the ambits of a legal-malpractice claim, and “[c]learly established law provides that expert testimony is necessary to establish the breach of a duty of care in a claim of legal malpractice.” Byrd v. Bowie, 933 So. 2d 899, 904 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So. 2d 92, 99 (Miss. 2004)). ¶15. | 2 | 2 |
Dean v. Conngreen2 sentences2008Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 635 (Miss.1987); Dean v. Conn, 419 So.2d 148, 150 (Miss.1982) (expert testimony ordinarily is necessary to support an action for legal malpractice). ¶ 10. 2006Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So. 2d 626, 635 (Miss. 1987); Dean v. Conn, 419 So. 2d 148, 150 (Miss. 1982) (expert testimony ordinarily is necessary to support an action for legal malpractice). 4 ¶10. | 2 | 2 |
Wilburn v. Wilburngreen2 sentences2019NPN Properties asserted as follows: [T]he ten-day requirement within Rule 59(e) “is absolute, and the court is not permitted to extend this time period.” Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185, 1191 (Miss. 2008); see also [M.R.C.P.] 59 cmt. (“A motion for new trial or a motion to alter or amend the judgment made pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59 must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment. 2019In its motion, NPN Properties argued that Cook’s motion for reconsideration/rehearing was untimely: [T]he ten-day requirement within Rule 59(e) “is absolute, and the court is not permitted to extend this time period.” Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185, 1191 (Miss. 2008); see also [M.R.C.P.] 59 cmt. (“A motion for new trial or a motion to alter or amend the judgment made pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59 must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Prentice v. Schindler Elevator Co.green1 sentence2012See Dunn, Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation § 32; Prentice v. Schindler Elevator Co., 13 So.3d 1258, 1260-61 (Miss.2009); Freeman, 379 So.2d at 889 . ¶ 21. | 1 | 1 |
Metal Trims Industries, Inc. v. Stovallgreen1 sentence2012Under these circumstances, this Court is not presented with an “even question” or a “[d]oubtful case” which would be controlled by the “beneficial purposes” of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act. 10 Metal Trims Indus., Inc. v. Stovall, 562 So.2d 1293, 1297 (Miss.1990); Guthrie, 554 So.2d at 918. | 1 | 1 |
Nobles v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Nobles v. State, 843 So.2d 734, 735 (¶¶ 5-6) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
Wetz v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 807-8 (Miss.1987). *122 ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008However, we acknowledged in Byrd that this Court had previously "carved out some exceptions to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a legal malpractice claim." Byrd, 933 So.2d at 904 (citing Hickox, 502 So.2d at 635 ; Thompson, 186 So.2d at 759 ). 2006However, we acknowledged in Byrd that this Court had previously “carved out some exceptions to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a legal malpractice claim.” Byrd, 933 So. 2d at 904 (citing Hickox, 502 So. 2d at 635 ; Thompson, 186 So. 2d at 759 ). | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Big\ 2\" Engine Rebuilders v. Freeman"
green
1 sentence2012See Dunn, Mississippi Workmen’s Compensation § 32; Prentice v. Schindler Elevator Co., 13 So.3d 1258, 1260-61 (Miss.2009); Freeman, 379 So.2d at 889 . ¶ 21. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Cook v. Home Depot
green
2 sentences2012Cook, 81 So.3d at 1127-28 . 2012The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Cook’s claim, finding that Cook “failed to timely file a petition to reinstate with the Commission and that the actions taken during the statute-of-limitations period were insufficient to toll the one-year period-” Id. at 1130 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.