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 1922–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
MISSISSIPPI METHODIST CONFERENCE v. Browngreen2 sentences2014In Mississippi United Methodist Conference v. Brown, this Court held blanket statements regarding whether or not documents may or may not be compelled in discovery procedures were not sufficient and “[o]nly an in-camera inspection and subsequent document-by-document analysis, accompanied by the corresponding rule or exception, will meet the requirements for such a determination.” Mississippi United Methodist Conference v. Brown, 911 So.2d 478, 481-82 (Miss.2005). 2013In Mississippi United Methodist Conference v. Brown, this Court held blanket statements regarding whether or not documents may or may not be compelled in discovery procedures were not sufficient and “[o]nly an in-camera 6 inspection and subsequent document-by-document analysis, accompanied by the corresponding rule or exception, will meet the requirements for such a determination.” Brown, 911 So. 2d 478, 481-82 (Miss. 2005). | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2023For decades, the United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized in criminal cases “the proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi v. John McAdamsgreen1 sentence2023Id. at 509 (¶14). | 1 | 1 |
Tolbert v. Stategreen1 sentence2000A similar policy is appropriate for defense discovery violations.” Coates, 495 So. 2d at 466 (citing Johnson v. State, 491 So.2d 834, 836-37 (Miss. 1986); Tolbert v. State, 441 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Miss. 1983)). 15 The corresponding rule in the current rules is URCCC 9.04. 41 ¶110. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2000A similar policy is appropriate for defense discovery violations.” Coates, 495 So. 2d at 466 (citing Johnson v. State, 491 So.2d 834, 836-37 (Miss. 1986); Tolbert v. State, 441 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Miss. 1983)). 15 The corresponding rule in the current rules is URCCC 9.04. 41 ¶110. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coates v. State
green
1 sentence2000A similar policy is appropriate for defense discovery violations.” Coates, 495 So. 2d at 466 (citing Johnson v. State, 491 So.2d 834, 836-37 (Miss. 1986); Tolbert v. State, 441 So.2d 1374, 1375 (Miss. 1983)). 15 The corresponding rule in the current rules is URCCC 9.04. 41 ¶110. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1922The clause in question in the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case “to be a witness against himself,” and the corresponding clause in section 26 provides that in such cases no person shall be compelled “to give evidence against himself.” There is no federal question involved in this case for it was held in Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383 , 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. 1922The clause in question in the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case “to be a witness against himself,” and the corresponding clause in section 26 provides that in such cases no person shall be compelled “to give evidence against himself.” There is no federal question involved in this case for it was held in Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383 , 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.