Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

K-Mart Corporation v. Hardy

735 So. 2d 975 (Miss. 1999)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
K-Mart Corporation v. Hardy

6 Citing cases

  1. Bower v. Bower

    1998 CA 1205 (Miss. 2000)   Cited 72 times

    "`[A]dmission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.'" K-Mart Corp. v.Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999). ¶ 36.

  2. Weeks v. Weeks

    2006 CA 1265 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Finding that the chancellor properly considered in her Albright analysis the violent behavior of the mother's boyfriend and the overall environment of the mother's home when she awarded physical custody of the child to the father

    ¶ 21. "Admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Bower, 758 So.2d at 413 (¶ 35) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (¶ 21) (Miss. 1999)). For this Court to reverse a trial court's decision based on the admission of evidence, "it must result in prejudice and harm or adversely affect a substantial right of a party."

  3. Aetna v. Pendleton Detectives of Miss

    182 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 17 times

    Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove proximate cause under Mississippi law. See K-Mart, Corp. v. Hardy, No. 97-CA-01223-SCT, 1999 WL 145306, at *5 (Miss. March 18, 1999). "`[N]egligence may be established by circumstantial evidence in the absence of testimony by eyewitnesses provided the circumstances are such as to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inference.'"

  4. United v. Merrill

    2005 CA 48 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 61 times
    Finding that reasonable attorney fees are justified where the jury awards punitive damages

    Blake v. Clein, 903 So.2d 710, 723 (Miss. 2005) (quoting K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975, 983 (Miss. 1999)). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when excluding these records.

  5. Farris v. State

    98 KA 600 (Miss. 2000)   Cited 52 times
    In Farris, the indictment's detailed description of the defendant's criminal agreement accompanied an account of the underlying illegal acts and the criminal intent thereof.

    . . . result[s] in prejudice and harm or adversely affect[s] a substantial right of a party." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975 (Miss. 1999) (citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 132 (Miss. 1991)). B. The Law of Conspiracy: Preliminary Findings on Evidence

  6. Fortune v. State

    1999 KA 475 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    There must be a showing that the trial judge abused his discretion and that "the admission or exclusion of evidence . . . results in prejudice and harm or adversely affects a substantial right of a party." K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975 (¶ 21) (Miss. 1999) (citing Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 132 (Miss. 1991)).