reasonable man standard (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

reasonable man standard in Mississippi

6 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 1991–1997 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Pruett v. City of Rosedalered
miss · 1982 · cited in 5 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1993–1997
2 sentences

1997As to her assertion that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, Brown refers only to language in Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, 1051-52 (Miss. 1982), which discusses the applicability of the reasonable man standard to governmental decision-making in the context of sovereign immunity.

1995As to her assertion that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, Brown refers only to language in Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So. 2d 1046, 1051-52 (Miss. 1982), which discusses the applicability of the reasonable man standard to governmental decision-making in the context of sovereign immunity.

25

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Whatley v. State green
miss · 1986
1 sentence

1991“Therefore, there can be no evaluation of the transaction under the reasonable man standard.” Whatley v. State, 490 So.2d at 1222 .

11991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MS § Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-6 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

LA 33 (1966–2008) IL 23 (1884–1994) CA 17 (1935–2025) PA 17 (1973–2020) AZ 13 (1963–2026) AL 12 (1901–2014) TX 12 (1915–2015) IN 10 (1968–2019) NY 10 (1972–2015) NC 9 (1978–2024) MN 9 (1970–2012) VA 8 (1991–2024) MA 8 (1985–2009) GA 7 (1942–1994) FL 7 (1967–2005) KS 6 (1980–1995) MS 6 (1991–1997) OR 5 (1973–2017) UT 5 (1950–2007) MI 5 (1918–2020) MO 4 (1921–1925) NJ 4 (1962–2003) HI 3 (1968–2025) ID 3 (1967–1974) OH 3 (1983–2002) MT 3 (1977–1985) SD 3 (1960–1986) TN 3 (1970–1985) NM 2 (1982–1989) WA 2 (1967–1976) DC 2 (1985–2018) OK 2 (1979–1994) DE 2 (1990–2018) ME 2 (1979–2017) WY 2 (1982–2018) SC 2 (1970–1996) WV 2 (1907–2023) IA 2 (1985–1988)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check