6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1202 (Miss.1985) (quoting Ruffin v. State, 447 So.2d 113, 118 (Miss.1984)) (“[T]he doctrine of fundamental fairness, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, at times requires authorization for appointment of a particular expert or investigator.”). 1999See also Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195 (Miss.1985) (holding that under doctrine of fundamental fairness, issue of whether an accused was entitled to an expert must be weighed on a case-by-case basis). | 2 | 2 |
Ruffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1202 (Miss.1985) (quoting Ruffin v. State, 447 So.2d 113, 118 (Miss.1984)) (“[T]he doctrine of fundamental fairness, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, at times requires authorization for appointment of a particular expert or investigator.”). 1986Ruffin v. State, 447 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1984), stated Mississippi's position on the question as follows: That there can conceivably be instances when the state in fairness should be required to pay the cost of an expert needed by the defense to insure a fair trial for an indigent accused must be conceded. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Janesgreen2 sentences2011See also State v. Janes, 121 Wash.2d 220 , 850 P.2d 495, 503 (1993) (quoting Steven R. 2011See also State v. Janes, 121 Wash.2d 220 , 850 P.2d 495, 503 (1993) (quoting Steven R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Carrington H.green1 sentence2023Connie also cites counsel’s failure to object to witnesses’ testimony that her “new boyfriend was a convicted felon when no substantiating documentation was entered into evidence.” This testimony was the parents received a fundamentally fair trial whose facts demonstrate an accurate determination.”); but see In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507, 535 (Tenn. 2016) (holding that a parent’s due process entitlement to fundamentally fair procedures in parental-rights- termination proceedings does not require that the parent be allowed to attack collaterally an order terminating parental rights based | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Caldwell v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence1988Id. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.