Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Moody v. Dykesgreen2 sentences2026Pearson v. Tippmann Pneumatics, Inc., 281 Ga. 740, 742 (2007) (citing Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217 (1998)) (“[I]nduced error based on a charge specifically requested by counsel or the acquiescence of counsel in the giving of a charge provides no ground for reversal under OCGA § 5-5-24(c).”). 2019See Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217, 219-220 (3) ( 496 SE2d 907 ) (1998) (induced error based on the acquiescence of counsel in the giving of a charge provides no ground for reversal under OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)). (b) Merits of JNOV Motion: Duty and Breach. | 2 | 3 |
SMITH Et Al. v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANYgreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 2 | 2 |
Pearson v. Tippmann Pneumatics, Inc.green1 sentence2026Pearson v. Tippmann Pneumatics, Inc., 281 Ga. 740, 742 (2007) (citing Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217 (1998)) (“[I]nduced error based on a charge specifically requested by counsel or the acquiescence of counsel in the giving of a charge provides no ground for reversal under OCGA § 5-5-24(c).”). | 1 | 1 |
Seabolt v. Cheesboroughgreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
Shilliday v. Dunawaygreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
Mercker v. Abendgreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
Nathan v. Duncangreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011) (explaining that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) on “plain error” applies to criminal cases while OCGA § 5-5-24 (c) on “substantial error” applies to civil cases). 7 A charge constituting substantial error is one that is harmful as a matter of law—i.e., “blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the extent . . . it raises the question of whether the losing party has, to some extent at least, been depriv 2021Such plain error may be considered on appeal even if it was not brought to the court’s attention as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.”); State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 32 (1) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011) (explaining that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) on “plain error” applies to criminal cases while OCGA § 5-5-24 (c) on “substantial error” applies to civil cases). 7 A charge constituting substantial error is one that is harmful as a matter of law—i.e., “blatantly apparent and prejudicial to the extent . . . it raises the question of whether the losing party has, to some extent at least, been depriv | 1 | 1 |
Waller v. Rymergreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises 2021Co., 337 Ga. App. 604, 612 (2) ( 788 SE2d 508 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted); see Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 164 (2) ( 240 SE2d 51 ) (1977) (“The exception to the rule found in [OCGA § 5-5-24 (c)] . . . is inapplicable unless it appears that the error contended is ‘blatantly apparent and prejudicial’ and that a gross miscarriage of justice attributable to it is about to result.” (punctuation & citations omitted)); Mercker v. Abend, 260 Ga. App. 836, 840 (2) ( 581 SE2d 351 ) (2003) (“A charge ‘harmful as a matter of law’ is one that is so blatantly apparent and prejudicial that it raises | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Battongreen2 sentences1992See Hunter v. Batton, 160 Ga. App. 849 (1) ( 288 SE2d 244 ) (1982). 4. 1992See Hunter v. Batton, 160 Ga. App. 849 (1) ( 288 SE2d 244 ) (1982). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Lissmore v. Kincadegreen2 sentences1992See Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 550 (4) ( 373 SE2d 819 ) (1988); Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1) ( 172 SE2d 336 ) (1969). 1992See Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 550 (4) ( 373 SE2d 819 ) (1988); Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1) ( 172 SE2d 336 ) (1969). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Communications, Inc.green1 sentence1983Accord, King v. Communications, Inc., 166 Ga. App. 35 (-SE2d-) (1983); Newman v. James M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. State
green
2 sentences2007See Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217 ( 496 SE2d 907 ) (1998); Thomas v. State, 245 Ga. 688 (6) ( 266 SE2d 499 ) (1980). 2007See Moody v. Dykes, 269 Ga. 217 ( 496 SE2d 907 ) (1998); Thomas v. State, 245 Ga. 688 (6) ( 266 SE2d 499 ) (1980). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Black v. Aultman
green
2 sentences1992See Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 550 (4) ( 373 SE2d 819 ) (1988); Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1) ( 172 SE2d 336 ) (1969). 1992See Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 550 (4) ( 373 SE2d 819 ) (1988); Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1) ( 172 SE2d 336 ) (1969). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hamrick v. Wood
green
2 sentences1987Cf. Hamrick v. Wood, 175 Ga. App. 67 (2) ( 332 SE2d 367 ) (1985). 5. 1987Cf. Hamrick v. Wood, 175 Ga. App. 67 (2) ( 332 SE2d 367 ) (1985). 5. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.