Legal Opinion

Seay v. Seay

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 2005No. 2000-CA-01558-SCTPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ON MOTION TO CLARIFY

WALLER, Presiding Justice,

for the Court.

¶ 1. The appellants’ motion to clarify is granted. The prior opinion, In re Estate of Hardy, 805 So.2d 515 (Miss.2002), is vacated and withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor.

¶2. Three sisters, Maynette Seay, Annette Seay Hinds, and Elizabeth Seay Self, seek review of the DeSoto County Chancery Court’s finding that their claims were barred under the general three-year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (1995). We find that the attempted conveyances of the sisters’ interest in certain real property…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. King v. BankerdCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  2. Money v. WoodMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Brown v. LairdOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Blankenship v. MyersIdaho Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Martin v. Adams, Et Ux.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1953

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Estate of HardyMississippi Supreme Court · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API