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 2010–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Timothy Carr v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2019But our supreme court held that under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Gowdy rule “does not meet either of the ‘limited exceptions’ that allow a new rule to be applied retroactively.” Carr, 178 So. 3d at 322 (¶12). 2019But our supreme court held that under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Gowdy rule “does not meet either of the ‘limited exceptions’ that allow a new rule to be applied retroactively.” Carr, 178 So. 3d at 322 (¶12). | 1 | 2 |
McCain v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Carr, 178 So.3d at 321 n. 2; see McCain, 81 So.3d at 1061-62 (¶¶ 13-15). ¶ 11. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gowdy v. State
green
2 sentences2015This Court found there was prejudice because “Gowdy would have been in a better position to make an informed and rational decision when presented with a proposed plea bargain.” Id. at 546 . 2012After the sentencing hearing was rescheduled for three weeks later, “the trial judge overruled Gowdy’s objection to the amendment, concluding that ‘there is no prejudice.’ ” Id. at 545 . | 4 | 2010–2015 |
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2019But our supreme court held that under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Gowdy rule “does not meet either of the ‘limited exceptions’ that allow a new rule to be applied retroactively.” Carr, 178 So. 3d at 322 (¶12). 2019But our supreme court held that under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Gowdy rule “does not meet either of the ‘limited exceptions’ that allow a new rule to be applied retroactively.” Carr, 178 So. 3d at 322 (¶12). | 1 | 2019–2019 |