 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Alley v. Northern Ins. Co., NO. 2005-CA-00481-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of a county insurance company since because the driver was not a named insured under the county policy, the individual who was hit by the insured could not stack the county's underinsured provisions on to the driver's liability policy.
|
|||||
| Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Burns, NO. 2004-IA-02558-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02560-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02561-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02562-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02563-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02564-SCT consolidated with NO. 2004-IA-02565-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In farmers' suit against seed company, farmers were not required to bring an administrative complaint because applicable version of Miss. Code Ann. § 69-3-19(3)(e)(ii) said only claims relating to damage by seed's failure to produce as per labeling requirement of Miss. Code Ann. § 69-3-5 must first be submitted to agricultural agency.
|
|||||
| Dies v. State, NO. 2004-KA-01782-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine was appropriate where there was substantial evidence of real docket conflicts and congestion that met the standard of "good cause shown" contained in Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-1. Therefore, those delays stopped the clock against the State and did not count toward the 270-day rule.
|
|||||
| Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williams, NO. 2004-CA-01249-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the circuit court failed to follow the evidentiary process contained in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65, the supreme court reversed and remanded for a new trial. By allowing all issues to be tried in a single phase, the jury was allowed to hear inflammatory evidence regarding alleged abuses committed by the insurer in denying the claim.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, NO. 2005-CP-00415-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal from her conviction for direct criminal contempt was inappropriate because she had stated to the chancery court that its actions were so reprehensible as to disgust any court and she refused to apologize for her behavior.
|
|||||
| M.W.F. v. D.D.F., NO. 2003-CT-02642-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court's entry of judgment did not resolve all the claims between the husband and wife, and the trial court did not issue a certificate pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the judgment was not a final order that could be appealed.
|
|||||
| Ralph Walker, Inc. v. Gallagher, NO. 2005-IA-00586-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss based on a running of the statute of limitations should have been granted in a personal injury case because there was no relation back under Miss. R. Civ. P. 15 to a timely filed complaint; owner did not have notice or knowledge of the action within the Miss. R. Civ. P. 4(h) time frame or within 120 days of the complaint filing.
|
|||||
| In re Local Rules of the Thirteenth Chancery Court Dist. of Miss., No. 89-R-99015-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
