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 1999–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thornhill v. Fordgreen2 sentences2010Further, if a statute is susceptible to more than one construction, “it must be given that which will best effect its purpose, rather than one which would defeat it.” Thornhill v. Ford, 213 Miss. 49 , 56 So.2d 23, 30 (1952). 2010Further, if a statute is susceptible to more than one construction, “it must be given that which will best effect its purpose, rather than one which would defeat it.” Thornhill v. Ford, 213 Miss. 49 , 56 So.2d 23, 30 (1952). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Wardengreen1 sentence2018See Price v. Clark , 21 So.3d 509 , 519 (Miss. 2009) ("[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements."); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So.2d 1179 , 1188 (Miss. 2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842 , 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the com | 1 | 1 |
Southern Enterprises v. Fostergreen1 sentence2018See Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509, 519 (Miss. 2009) (“[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements.”); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179, 1188 (Miss. 2008) (“[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days[’] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal.”); Thomas v. Warden, 999 4 Wood stated that she again had been unable to serve “A. Moore, L.P.N., because the Defendants will not produce A. Moore’s full legal name and address, although the Plaintif | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2018See Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509, 519 (Miss. 2009) (“[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements.”); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179, 1188 (Miss. 2008) (“[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days[’] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal.”); Thomas v. Warden, 999 4 Wood stated that she again had been unable to serve “A. Moore, L.P.N., because the Defendants will not produce A. Moore’s full legal name and address, although the Plaintif 2018See Price v. Clark , 21 So.3d 509 , 519 (Miss. 2009) ("[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements."); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So.2d 1179 , 1188 (Miss. 2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842 , 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the com | 1 | 1 |
Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, INC.green2 sentences2018See Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509, 519 (Miss. 2009) (“[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements.”); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179, 1188 (Miss. 2008) (“[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days[’] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal.”); Thomas v. Warden, 999 4 Wood stated that she again had been unable to serve “A. Moore, L.P.N., because the Defendants will not produce A. Moore’s full legal name and address, although the Plaintif 2018See Price v. Clark , 21 So.3d 509 , 519 (Miss. 2009) ("[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements."); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So.2d 1179 , 1188 (Miss. 2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842 , 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the com | 1 | 1 |
Arceo v. Tollivergreen2 sentences2018See Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509, 519 (Miss. 2009) (“[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements.”); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179, 1188 (Miss. 2008) (“[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days[’] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal.”); Thomas v. Warden, 999 4 Wood stated that she again had been unable to serve “A. Moore, L.P.N., because the Defendants will not produce A. Moore’s full legal name and address, although the Plaintif 2018See Price v. Clark , 21 So.3d 509 , 519 (Miss. 2009) ("[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements."); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So.2d 1179 , 1188 (Miss. 2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842 , 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the com | 1 | 1 |
FOREST HILL NURSING CENTER AND LONG TERM CARE MAGT., LLC v. Bristergreen2 sentences2018See Price v. Clark, 21 So. 3d 509, 519 (Miss. 2009) (“[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements.”); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So. 2d 1179, 1188 (Miss. 2008) (“[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days[’] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal.”); Thomas v. Warden, 999 4 Wood stated that she again had been unable to serve “A. Moore, L.P.N., because the Defendants will not produce A. Moore’s full legal name and address, although the Plaintif 2018See Price v. Clark , 21 So.3d 509 , 519 (Miss. 2009) ("[D]ismissal was the proper remedy for failure to comply with the notice requirements."); Forest Hill Nursing Ctr. and Long Term Care Mgmt., LLC v. Brister, 992 So.2d 1179 , 1188 (Miss. 2008) ("[A]s a named party, Forest Hill was entitled to sixty days['] notice before the filing of the suit, failing which, Forest Hill was entitled to dismissal."); Thomas v. Warden , 999 So.2d 842 , 847 (Miss. 2008) ("Because Thomas failed to provide a sixty-day notice as required by Section 15-1-36(15), we must affirm the trial court's dismissal of the com | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Skeltongreen1 sentence2012Williams v. Skelton, 6 So.3d 428, 430 (Miss.2009). | 1 | 1 |
Ferrer v. Jackson County Bd. of Sup'rsgreen1 sentence1999Likewise, in Ferrer v. Jackson County Board of Supervisors, 741 So.2d 216, 219 (Miss.1999), we followed Carr and held that the county's payment of the plaintiffs property damage claim and its settlement offer on the remaining claims estopped the county raising the presuit notice requirement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fowler v. White
green
1 sentence2015Thus, at a minimum, Waldrup’s “failure to satisfy the presuit-notice requirement mandates dismissal without prejudice.” Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 30. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Carr v. Town of Shubuta
green
1 sentence1999In Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261 (Miss.1999), we found that the "Report of *665 Public Liability" which Carr completed at the office of the city clerk sufficiently complied with the pre-suit notice of claim provisions of the Tort Claims Act. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.