 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edmonds v. State, NO. 2004-CT-02081-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of expert testimony in a capital murder case under Miss. R. Evid. 702 regarding a "two-shooter" theory to the exclusion of a single-shooter theory was prejudicial error because testimony was based on opinion or speculation rather than scientific methods and was the only evidence other than a contested confession to support State's theory.
|
|||||
| Gilmer v. State, NO. 2004-KA-02236-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant under "video voyeur" statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-63, as he (1) acted secretly in recording victim as he recorded her at night, inside his vehicle, and 87 feet away from her apartment; and (2) recorded her while in her apartment which was statutory equivalent of recording her in her private dwelling.
|
|||||
| McCord v. Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., NO. 2005-CA-01353-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured did not establish bad faith or tortious interference with a settlement on the part of an insurer and a recovery service because the insured suffered no damages from incorrect assertion of contractual subrogation and, even though unsuccessful, the insurers had a legitimate belief that equitable subrogation might have been available to them.
|
|||||
| Troupe v. McAuley, NO. 2006-CA-00252-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A directed verdict in favor of medical providers in a patient's medical malpractice action was proper under Miss. R. Evid. 702 because the patient's proffered expert was a neurologist who had never performed middle ear surgery. Thus, he was unable to offer an opinion on the appropriate standard of care owed to the patient.
|
|||||
| Veal v. J. P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A., NO. 2005-IA-00607-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Addition of defendants' names in plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 9(h) without court's leave was improper because the new names were not substituted for fictitious parties, but rather were those of new defendants whose addition required court approval under Miss. R. Civ. P. 21.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
