 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Loveless v. City of Booneville, NO. 2005-KM-02017-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an officer heard loud music from defendant's vehicle and saw him cross over the center line, he had probable cause to stop the vehicle. The officer's inability to cite the noise ordinance did not affect the probable cause finding. The resumption of the DUI trial after a continuance did not constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Maxwell v. Baptist Mem'l Hospital-DeSoto, Inc., NO. 2006-CA-00440-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to a doctor and a hospital in a medical malpractice action because the expert testimony offered by a patient's wife was insufficient since it did not articulate an objective standard; inter alia, expert testimony was required to establish causation for a death that occurred several days after an overdose.
|
|||||
| Wallace v. State, NO. 2005-KA-01074-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of robbery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-73, the trial court complied with Miss. Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 8.05 in allowing defendant to represent himself. There was no basis to support defendant's argument that the trial judge erred in foregoing a competency hearing. Defendant was not entitled to a new trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
