green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
45.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…legislative exceptions in statutes should be interpreted according to the rules of construction . . . and applied only so far as their language fairly warrants.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
WALTON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (Two Cases)
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
legislative exceptions in statutes should be interpreted according to the rules of construction . . . and applied only so far as their language fairly warrants.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Marty Dustin Whitman
(2×)
So, we must first consider whether the State’s appeal satisfies the criteria delineated in OCGA § 14 OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4) (emphasis supplied). 15 OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5) (emphasis supplied). 16 State v. Petty, 362 Ga. App. 825 , 828-29 ( 870 SE2d 241 ) (2022) (punctuation omitted); see Andrade, 298 Ga. at 467 (“An appeal from . . . an order [suppressing evidence of an involuntarily given statement] is not authorized by OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (5), which is concerned instead with evidence excluded on other grounds, such as evidence excluded pursuant to general rules of evidence.”), abrogated on…
discussed
Cited "see"
Julia Catherine Stanley v. State
(2×)
See Johnson v. State, 304 Ga. 369 , 370 (1) ( 818 SE2d 601 ) (2018).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. ROSENBAUM
(2×)
See White v. State, 305 Ga. 111, 122, n. 10 ( 823 SE2d 794 ) (2019) (“When a high court finds discordant opinions among its own horizontal precedents . . . (the court) generally follows its decision in the most recent case, which must have tacitly overruled any truly inconsistent holding.”) (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) And, as we observed in Johnson v. State, 304 Ga. 369, 373 (2) ( 818 SE2d 601 ) (2018), the General Assembly in Ga. L. 2013, p. 222, §§ 3, 21 enacted OCGA § 5-7-6 (“This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes stated in this chap…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JOHNSON
v.
State
v.
State
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Aug 27, 2018.
Brian Chiles Tevis, TEVIS LAW FIRM, LLC., 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 3325, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellant, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Matthew Blackwell Crowder, Assistant Attorney General, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Lyndsey Hurst Rudder, Deputy D.A., Marc A. Mallon, Senior A.D.A., FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 136 Pryor Street, S.W., 4th Floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Appellee, Hines, Chief Justice **369John Johnson was convicted of murder but was granted a new trial. The State appealed, and the trial court entered an order denying Johnson's motion for appeal bond. Johnson now appeals from that order, contending that it is directly appealable pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-51 and that the denial of bond violates the same statute. For the reasons that follow, which differ from those given by the trial court, we affirm. *603Johnson was charged with murder and related crimes in 2006, was granted pretrial bond, was tried before a jury in 2014, was convicted of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and a consecutive five-year term for the firearms charge. The trial court, however, granted his motion for new trial and vacated the previously imposed sentences, and the State filed a notice of appeal.2 Johnson subsequently filed a motion for appeal bond in the trial court under OCGA § 5-7-5. After a hearing, the trial court denied that motion, deciding that \the bond [Johnson] seeks is not
shall be reviewable on direct application by the court to which the appeal is taken.\" This sentence must be read | in fact
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Georgia (4)
[*608] Henry v. James , 264 Ga. 527, 533 (5), 449 S.E.2d 79 (1994).
Judgment affirmed.
Melton, P.J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, and Peterson, JJ., concur.