 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 2004 Chevrolet Pickup v. State, NO. 2006-CA-01104-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A forfeiture of a vehicle because it was purchased with drug funds was proper because the alleged owner was but a straw man involving the ownership of a vehicle. Evidence showed that the true owner went to the dealership to check out the truck, paid the initial cash for it, and paid for the maintenance on the vehicle.
|
|||||
| Black v. State, NO. 2006-CP-00807-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's request for post-conviction relief was procedurally barred as successive writ in case related to sale of controlled substance, because his claims were his third request for post-conviction relief, and he did not provide any evidence or facts that would satisfy any of exceptions to successive writ bar of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, NO. 2006-CA-01342-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant claimed that a plea agreement he entered into was coerced and that counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the trial court's sentence. The motion for postconviction relief was properly denied because there was no evidence that defendant fulfilled his obligation, as he was required to do according to the plea agreement.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. State, NO. 2006-CP-00959-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2), defendant's motion for post-conviction relief was time barred as it was filed after three-year statute of limitation. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9), motion was procedurally barred as it was successive in nature. There was nothing in record to support assertion that State violated any plea agreement.
|
|||||
| Carroll v. State, NO. 2006-CP-01204-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant convicted of selling methamphetamine based on a guilty plea was not entitled to post-conviction relief. He failed to prove that his indictment did not meet the statutory requirements for validity under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-9. His claim that counsel failed to interview witnesses did not prove that counsel was deficient.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, NO. 2005-KA-01836-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for motor vehicle theft in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-42 was proper because the testimony placed defendant in the stolen vehicle during the dealership's summer sale and established that he drove the vehicle off of the auto lot without the authority to do so.
|
|||||
| Easterling v. State, NO. 2006-KA-00838-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though an identification of defendant in the back of a patrol car was suggestive in nature, a trial court properly admitted highly certain identifications of defendant by several witnesses, who were near defendant during a theft and resulting police chase.
|
|||||
| Johnston v. Palmer, NO. 2006-CA-00428-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer sued a client and a corporation alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract; summary judgment for the client and corporation was appropriate because there was no gross or intentional breach of contract. Lawyer failed to present supporting evidence of alleged breach of covenant of good faith, fraud, and misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Gresham, NO. 2006-CA-00653-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Chancellor's decision to credit one survey over another in a quiet title action was not clearly erroneous because one survey coordinated with the original plat, original monuments, with the evidence on the ground, and with the long accepted understanding of the landowners.
|
|||||
| Netterville v. Weyerhaeuser Co., NO. 2006-CP-01785-COA,
COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI, August 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion for relief under Miss. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) was properly dismissed because an alleged descendant waited more than 6 years to challenge an adverse ruling in an ejectment action filed against a record title holder; there was no reason for his failure to file an appeal or his decision to wait so long to file the motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
