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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
FLEUREME v. CITY OF ATLANTAgreen1 sentence2026Reflecting on the statute, the Court explained that its purpose is to ensure that “a municipality knows about a potential tort claim and has a chance to settle it before a lawsuit is filed.” Id. at 182(2)(a). | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justicegreen2 sentences2025Cf. Cum- mings v. Georgia Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822, 824 ( 653 SE2d 729 ) (2007) (addressing the Georgia Tort Claims Act’s ante li- tem notice requirement and explaining that its “purpose . . . is to ensure that the state receives adequate notice of the claim to facili- tate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit”) (cleaned up). 2025Cf. Cum- mings v. Georgia Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 282 Ga. 822, 824 ( 653 SE2d 729 ) (2007) (addressing the Georgia Tort Claims Act’s ante li- tem notice requirement and explaining that its “purpose . . . is to ensure that the state receives adequate notice of the claim to facili- tate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit”) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
LOEHLE Et Al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Et Al.green2 sentences2017Loehle v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 334 Ga. App. 836, 836-837 ( 780 SE2d 469 ) (2015) (citations omitted). 1 See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) (applications for interlocutory appeals). 2 The GTCA requires a party with a potential tort claim against the State to provide the State with written notice of the claim before filing suit. 2017Loehle v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 334 Ga. App. 836, 836-837 ( 780 SE2d 469 ) (2015) (citations omitted). 1 See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) (applications for interlocutory appeals). 2 The GTCA requires a party with a potential tort claim against the State to provide the State with written notice of the claim before filing suit. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terell Douglas v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
green
2 sentences2020Brown argues that the trial court erred in granting the Board’s motion to dismiss because the medical records attached to his ante litem notice met the place of transactions or occurrence requirement of the GTCA. [T]he GTCA is a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity, crafted, as is constitutionally authorized, by our Legislature, and not subject to modification or abrogation by our courts, and requires a party with a potential tort claim against the State to provide the State with 1 Douglas v. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 349 Ga. App. 10 , 10-11 ( 825 SE2d 395 ) (2019) (punctuation an 2020Brown argues that the trial court erred in granting the Board’s motion to dismiss because the medical records attached to his ante litem notice met the place of transactions or occurrence requirement of the GTCA. [T]he GTCA is a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity, crafted, as is constitutionally authorized, by our Legislature, and not subject to modification or abrogation by our courts, and requires a party with a potential tort claim against the State to provide the State with 1 Douglas v. Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 349 Ga. App. 10 , 10-11 ( 825 SE2d 395 ) (2019) (punctuation an | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Johnson v. Trust Co. Bank
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 651 , 478 S.E.2d 629 . 1997Id. at 651 , 478 S.E.2d 629 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.