Hall v. Ault (1978)

green · 109 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 22 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 22

Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

197820022026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Cynthia B. Gorin v. Elton S. Osborne, Jr., M.D. (1985)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

In Hall v. Ault, the Georgia Supreme Court held that this "statute prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions, leaving only a determination of whether the facts found by the board are supported by ‘any evidence'.” 242 S.E.2d at 102 (emphasis supplied).

emphasis supplied

green Capote v. State (2024)

Rule Authority · Ga. · 2 citations in this opinion

Whether Georgia courts have correctly interpreted that statutory text in civil cases is not the subject of this concurrence. 32 231 Ga. 695, 695 (203 SE2d 860) (1974) (in a civil case, referencing the “clearly erroneous” language from Code § 81A-152 and then applying some version of an any-evidence standard); Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 (242 SE2d 101) (1978) (in reviewing an administrative proceeding, construing the clearly-erroneous standard of review in the predecessor …

green Emory University v. Levitas (1991)

Rule Authority · Ga. · 2 citations in this opinion

Hall in his dissenting opinion in Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 587 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Georgia Power Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission (1990)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

"This language `prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions leaving only a determination whether the facts found by the board are supported by "any evidence."' Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978)." Georgia State Indemnification Comm. v. Lyons, 256 Ga. 311, 312 ( 348 SE2d 642 ) (1986); Lasseter, supra at 232 ; Bulloch Academy v. Cornett, 184 Ga. App. 42 ( 360 SE2d 615 ) (1987).

green Georgia State Indemnification Commission v. Lyons (1986)

Rule Authority · Ga. · 2 citations in this opinion

This language “prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions leaving only a determination whether the facts found by the board are supported by ‘any evidence.’ ” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Satilla Riverwatch Alliance, Inc. v. David Dove, Interim Director, Environmental Protection Division, Georgia… (2024)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

But, OCGA § 50-13-19 (h) specifically provides that [t]he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact [but] . . . [t]he court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings . . . are: . . . (5) 14 [c]learly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record[.] OCGA § 50-13-19 (h). …

green In Re Arnold Ragas (2021)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Pruitt Corp. v. Georgia Department of Community Health (2008)

Rule Authority · Ga.

“Thus, the statute prevents a de novo determination of the eviden-tiary questions leaving only a determination of whether the facts found by the [agency] are supported by ‘any evidence.’ ” Hall v. Ault, *161 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Odom (2004)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

This statute “prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions” and authorizes “only a determination of whether the facts found by the board are supported by ‘any evidence.’” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Professional Standards Commission v. Smith (2002)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by “any evidence.” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Reheis v. Drexel Chemical Co. (1999)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by “any evidence.” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Department of Corrections v. Glisson (1998)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978); Stanley v. Dept. of Human Resources, 146 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 246 SE2d 459 ) (1978).

green Reheis v. AZS CORP. (1998)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by “any evidence.” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green City of Atlanta Government v. Smith (1997)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

I would agree with Justice Hunt’s dissent on this point in the Levitas case and with the dissent of Justice Hall in Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 587-588 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Sawyer v. Reheis (1994)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

The “clearly erroneous” standard of review to be applied by the superior court “prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions leaving only a determination of whether the facts found by the [ALJ] are supported by ‘any evidence.’ ” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ).

green Lyons v. Georgia State Indemnification Commission (1986)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ); Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Holland, 133 Ga. App. 616, 617 (1) ( 211 SE2d 635 ).

green Roberts v. Georgia Real Estate Commission (1979)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

See Flowers v. Ga. Real Estate Commission, 141 Ga. App. 105 ( 232 SE2d 586 ); Ga. Real Estate Commission v. Hooks, 139 Ga. App. 34, 35 ( 227 SE2d 864 ); Ga. Real Estate Commission v. Horne, 141 Ga. App. 226 ( 233 SE2d 16 ); Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ). 3.

green Stanley v. Department of Human Resources (1978)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Code Ann. § 40-2207.l(m), which sets forth the procedure for hearings and judicial review of decisions of the State Personnel Board, "prevents a de novo determination of evidentiary questions leaving only a determination of whether the facts found by the board are supported by 'any evidence.’ ” Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Thebaut v. Georgia Board of Dentistry (1998)

Cited (see also) · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: compare · 2 citations in this opinion

Compare In the Matter of Daw, 910 P2d 752 , 754-755 (Idaho 1996) (private repri mand following adjudicatory hearing is judicially reviewable even though not specifically provided in rules). 240 Ga. 585 , 586 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Georgia Real Estate Commission v. Syfan (1989)

Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585 ( 242 SE2d 101 ) (1978).

green Cardell v. Jackson (1980)

Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585 ( 242 SE2d 101 ), in regard to the evidentiary standard of review on appeal. 2.

green Courts v. Economic Opportunity Authority for Savannah-Chatham County Area, Inc. (1978)

Cited · S.D. Ga. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585 , 242 S.E.2d 101 construing the standards established in Ga. Code Ann. § 40-2207.1 (m) which state that “The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the board ás to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact.” The decision in Hall affirmed the ruling in 143 Ga.App. 158 , 237 S.E.2d 653 .