State v. Deason (1989)

green · 15 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Yellow 1 Green 5

Sort: By significance · Most recent

yellow Williams v. State (2001)

But See · Ga. · signal: but see · 2 citations in this opinion

But see State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184, fn. 1 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (1989) (rejecting due process challenge to OCGA § 45-11-4, and expressly noting that the constitutionality of OCGA § 17-7-52 was not before the court).

green Ellis v. State (2016)

Quote Authority · Ga. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (1989) (“[0]fficersaffordedthe privileges of OCGA § 45-11-4 have generally been, and presently are, county or municipal officers with broad governing power, who are vested with authority which requires them to exercise discretion”).

“[0]fficersaffordedthe privileges of OCGA § 45-11-4 have generally been, and presently are, county or municipal officers with broad governing power, who are vested with authority which requires them to exercise discretion”

green State v. Smith (2010)

Rule Authority · Ga.

State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (1989).

green Smith v. State (2009)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Dyer v. State, 7 Ga. App. 58, 58-59 ( 65 SE 1089 ) (1909) (discussing predecessor statute); State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (1989) (rationale of OCGA § 45-11-4 is that government officials require protections of statute lest "their reputation and efficiency in office. . . be impaired while defending baseless charges") (citations omitted).

green Dudley v. State (2001)

Rule Authority · Ga.

Lundy at 683 (1), quoting State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (1989).

green Lundy v. State (1990)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

These *683 procedural protections have been established by the General Assembly to protect “certain government officials, who are vested with authority requiring them to exercise discretion, against possible frivolous indictments pursued by persons aggrieved by the exercise of that discretion ... [so that] their reputation and efficiency in office [are not] impaired while [they defend against] baseless charges. [Cits.]” State v. Deason, 259 Ga. 183, 184 ( 378 SE2d 120 ) (198…