 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ill. Cent. R.R. v. McDaniel, NO. 2005-CA-00389-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Several employees brought a personal injury suit under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.S. §§ 51-60 against a railroad. Trial court did not err in denying railroad's motion to dismiss because missing information in affidavits about employees participation in other suits did not prejudice railroad.
|
|||||
| In re Coleman, NO. 2005-BR-02344-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney's petition for reinstatement was granted pursuant to Miss. R. Disc. St. Bar 12 as the attorney stated the cause of the suspension, reimbursed the fund from which he had withheld money, and proved to the court that he possessed the requisite moral character for reinstatement to the practice of law.
|
|||||
| Mayor & Bd. of Aldermen v. Homebuilders Ass'n of Miss., Inc., NO. 2004-CC-01278-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Development impact fees constituted a tax that a city had no authority to assess. The fees constituted a tax because the fees were simply a revenue-raising measure. Mississippi's home rule statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5, did not authorize the city to impose a tax unless such tax was specifically authorized by another statute or state law.
|
|||||
| Miss. State Tax Comm'n v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., NO. 2003-CA-00325-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Franchise tax imposed by Mississippi State Tax Commission was proper where, under Miss. Code Ann. § 27-7-23(c)(3)(A)(ii), state could tax sales as it did not violate commerce clause; tax had sufficient nexus with state, was fairly apportioned, did not discriminate against interstate commerce, and was fairly related to services provided by state.
|
|||||
| Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., NO. 2005-CA-00917-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the two year statute of limitations in Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-1-36(15) was extended sixty days pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-57, the individual's claim for malpractice against a medical center was timely when it was filed two years and 30 days after the date of injury.
|
|||||
| State v. Bd. of Levee Comm'rs, NO. 2005-SA-00104-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bill requiring board of levee commissioners to transfer funds to state budget contingency fund was unconstitutional because it mandated such funds be used for non-levee purposes, which plainly conflicted with clear language of Miss. Const. art. XI, §§ 232 and 236 requiring board funds to be used only to erect, maintain, and repair levee system.
|
|||||
| White v. Stewman, NO. 2005-IA-00022-SCT consolidated with NO. 2005-CA-00069-SCT,
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, June 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a collision was caused when a commercial driver swerved to avoid hitting an unknown driver, reasonable minds could have differed as to liability. The jury verdict for the commercial driver and his employer was supported by the evidence. The trial court erred by setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial under Miss. R. Civ. P. 50(c).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
