Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 (2026)
Title of article
✓ current as of July 2026
This article is to be known as the Uniform Controlled Substances Law.
Codes, 1942, § 6831-51; Laws, 1971, ch. 521, § 1, eff. 4/16/1971.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Dawkins v. State, 547 A.2d 1041 (Md. 1988).
Dawkins v. State, 547 A.2d 1041 (Md. 1988). “20 (1988); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-101 to 41-29-185 (1972); Mo.”
Williams v. State, 463 So. 2d 1064 (Miss. 1985). “Having due regard for the difficulties confronting law enforcement officers with respect to the enforcement of our laws respecting the sale of controlled substances, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-101 , et seq. (Supp.”
Jones v. State Ex Rel. Mississippi Dps, 607 So. 2d 23 (Miss. 1991). “PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court: Following the arrest of Daniel Paul Jones for possession of marijuana and a search of his automobile, the State of Mississippi filed this civil action, a Petition for Forfeiture pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 et seq. (1972, as amended).”
Stringfield v. State, 588 So. 2d 438 (Miss. 1991). “The Uniform Controlled Substances Law, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 , et seq., (Supp.”
Mcfadden v. Miss. State Bd. of Med., 735 So. 2d 145 (Miss. 1999). “The search warrant, obtained pursuant to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-101 et seq., permitted the investigators to obtain and review the medical records of selected patients under Dr.”
Apolinar Terrero Ruiz v. State of Mississippi, 227 So. 3d 1132 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 to -191 (Rev.”
One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($137,325.00) in United States Currency v. State Ex Rel. Pelahatchie Police Dep't, 204 So. 3d 317 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 to - 191 (Rev.”
Neely v. State Ex Rel. Tate Cnty., 628 So. 2d 1376 (Miss. 1993). “Following the arrest of Edward Earl Neely for trafficking crack cocaine, the State of Mississippi filed this civil action, a Petition for Forfeiture pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 et seq. (Supp.”
Hickman v. State ex rel. Mississippi Dep't of Pub. Saf., 592 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1991). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 41-29-101, et seq. (Supp.”
One Hundred Seven Thousand Dollars ($107,000.00) U.S. Currency v. State, ex rel. Harrison Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't ex rel. Gulf Coast Multijurisdictional Task Force, 643 So. 2d 917 (Miss. 1994). “Tagle was given a ticket by Smith for driving under a suspended license. . Tagle’s attorney objected to this questioning on hearsay grounds.”
Lee v. State, 733 So. 2d 336 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “Here, by virtue of the wording of the indictment and Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-101 et seq. these requirements are met.”
Hickman v. State Ex Rel. Miss. Dps, 592 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1991). “There is no finding, and no evidence to support such a finding, that any Section of the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-101 *49 et seq. was violated or intended to be violated with this cash or to obtain this cash.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.