Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
Hitt v. Hart: The Dangers of Minimizing a Testator\u27s Video Testimony
No full textAn inherent issue in wills cases is that the person who could prove the validity of a will with absolute certainty – the testator – is dead by the time the will is contested. In today’s technological age, a potential aid for this issue is a video of the testator explaining her dispositions. However, in Hitt v. Hart, the Mississippi Court of Appeals largely ignored such a video and relied on testimony from other family members to invalidate a will for undue influence. The testator in Hitt approached her attorney and explained that she wanted to disinherit all but one of her children. Knowing the strong likelihood that the disinherited children would contest the will, the attorney required a cooling-off period for the testator and created a video in which the testator explained her wishes. I do not suggest that this video should have automatically validated the will, but rather, I propose that the video itself should be examined for undue influence first. If no undue influence is found in the creation of the video, courts should demand that it be considered at all stages of the overall undue influence analysis or that the burden shifts back to the contesting party to prove undue influence
Issue Introduction
Full text linkThe 2023 Mississippi College Law Review Symposium explored the unique legal and systemic challenges faced by U.S. veterans, from navigating Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) to addressing the complexities of the VA claims process and advocating for legislative reform. Panels featured legal experts, judges, and veterans sharing insights on supporting veterans’ mental and physical health, promoting rehabilitation over incarceration, and addressing outdated policies. The Symposium emphasized the critical role of informed advocacy and legislative action in improving outcomes for veterans and ensuring they have the resources needed to thrive in civilian life
Shrines of Discrimination: A Comparative Exploration of American and Indian Approaches to Balancing Religious Freedom and Equal Rights
Full text linkReligious freedom and equality, foundational human rights, often clash in legal contexts, particularly when religious practices justify discriminatory actions. The U.S. judiciary has grappled with this tension, as exemplified in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance. These cases reflect opposing judicial tendencies: deference to religious beliefs versus prioritization of equality. However, neither case established a clear framework for balancing these rights. This article examines India’s essentiality test, which assesses whether a religious practice is integral to a faith, as a potential model for resolving such conflicts. By comparing U.S. and Indian legal approaches, this article explores insights from Indian constitutional law that may inform U.S. jurisprudence in balancing religious freedom and equality
Amending Rule 15.3 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure to Fully Capture Boykin v. Alabama and Acknowledge Systemic Coercion Indigent Defendants Face in Mississippi
Full text linkThe U.S. Constitution—not a state—is what governs questions of constitutionality. It follows that for a state court to make a constitutionally sufficient record of a defendant’s waiver at their plea, the complete interpretation as to sufficiency by the United States Supreme Court must be followed. This Comment stands for the proposition that when Rule 15.3 of the Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure was adopted in 2017, it misinterpreted the call of the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Ultimately, this Comment suggests amendments to Rule 15.3 that would place it in compliance with Boykin, and concurrently account for unique systemic coercion indigent defendants face in Mississippi—the third most incarcerated state in the world as of 2024
