 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Franklin Collection Serv. v. Kyle, NO. 2005-IA-00988-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In collection agency's suit on open account against patient, trial court erred in denying collection agency's and medical services provider's motions for summary judgment on counterclaim of breach of patient-physician privilege because information that was attached to collection agency's complaint was not privileged under Miss. R. Evid. 503.
|
|||||
| Green v. Allendale Planting Co., NO. 2005-CA-02271-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and manufacturer in the employee's personal-injury action was proper because the employee needed no warning to understand the danger of coming into close proximity with the moving chains attached to a mule boy. He appreciated that it was a dangerous situation but did not turn off the machine.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. Wansley, NO. 2005-CA-01055-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A grant of summary judgment in favor of the doctor in a medical malpractice action was proper under Miss. R. Evid. 702 because the trial court properly found that the patient's witness-doctor was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care of an internist. And, the alleged negligence of the doctor did not fall under the layman's exception.
|
|||||
| Lattimore v. State, NO. 2002-KA-01853-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police conducted a pre-trial identification without defense counsel present, the error was not fatal; defendant admitted to being at the murder scene. Counsel's failure to object to the in-court identification did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Jury misconduct did not affect the verdict.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, NO. 1998-DP-01038-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, April 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Capital murder conviction and death sentence were reversed, and defendant's case was remanded for a new trial, because he was denied a fair trial through independent and cumulative errors, which included ineffective assistance of counsel, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial misconduct, while most of evidence against him was indirect.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
