correctness rule in Georgia

2021In noting this apparent error, we take no position on the correctness of the instruction from King that was repeated (albeit with a transcription error) in Little. 14 ( 839 SE2d 521 ) (2020), where we held: A person is justified in threatening or using force against another, or in engaging in conduct that is otherwise prohibited under [the carrying and possessing firearms part of the Code], when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force or conduct otherwise prohibited under [the carrying and possessing firearms part of the code] is necessary to defend himse

2001Therefore, we acknowledge that the general rule in the Eleventh Circuit is that actions taken in violation of an automatic stay are void ab initio, and persuaded of the correctness of that rule, we overrule Cole, supra. Filing a notice of levy and advertising the property for sale are actions that are clearly stayed during the pendency of a bankruptcy. 11 USC § 362 (a) (4); see Barnett Bank, supra; Washington v. Internal Revenue Svc., 172 B.R. 415 (1) (S.D.

1998The correctness of an analysis that turns on the known risk of injury, as opposed to a known actual injury, is completely supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Callen , where the Court held, “It is obvious that a release is not a device to exempt from liability but is a means of compromising a claimed liability and to that extent recognizing its possibility.” (Emphasis supplied.) Callen, supra at 631 .

1979In view of this court's decision in Azizi v. Board of Regents, 233 Ga. 487 ( 212 SE2d 627 ) (1975) that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has attained constitutional status in this state, we do not feel at liberty to reconsider the correctness of this rule. [8] Certain dicta in Austin v. Augusta Terminal R.

1979In view of this court's decision in Azizi v. Board of Regents, 233 Ga. 487 ( 212 SE2d 627 ) (1975) that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has attained constitutional status in this state, we do not feel at liberty to reconsider the correctness of this rule. [8] Certain dicta in Austin v. Augusta Terminal R.

1955As stated by Justice Bleckley in Andrews v. Holliday, 63 Ga. 263, 271 , “the complainant in a bill of interpleader merely stirs up a war and then leaves the real belligerents to fight it out, he retiring from the scene to repose in dignified ease.” In the present case the plaintiff in error having filed its claim, it was in a “position similar to that of plaintiffs in other possessory actions, where the recovery must be on the strength of their own title rather than on the weakness of their adversary’s title.” Conway v. Caswell, 121 Ga. 254, 259, 260 ( 48 S. E. 956 , 2 Ann.

1955As stated by Justice Bleckley in Andrews v. Holliday, 63 Ga. 263, 271 , “the complainant in a bill of interpleader merely stirs up a war and then leaves the real belligerents to fight it out, he retiring from the scene to repose in dignified ease.” In the present case the plaintiff in error having filed its claim, it was in a “position similar to that of plaintiffs in other possessory actions, where the recovery must be on the strength of their own title rather than on the weakness of their adversary’s title.” Conway v. Caswell, 121 Ga. 254, 259, 260 ( 48 S. E. 956 , 2 Ann.

1953Co., 60 Ga. App. 57, 59 , 2 S. E. 2d 760 ); and where as here the trial judge sat both as judge and jury, it was for him to pass upon the question of whether the failure of the plaintiff to produce witnesses raised such a presumption and whether such presumption had been overcome.

1953Co., 60 Ga. App. 57, 59 , 2 S. E. 2d 760 ); and where as here the trial judge sat both as judge and jury, it was for him to pass upon the question of whether the failure of the plaintiff to produce witnesses raised such a presumption and whether such presumption had been overcome.

1949It is true that in Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Phillips, 117 Ga. 98 ( 43 S. E. 494 ), the author of the opinion expressed some doubt as to the correctness of the rule first above stated as to the necessity of pleading and proof, in view of the provision of the Code of 1895, § 5231, as to judicial cognizance, but the question was not then raised for decision and no ruling was made thereon.

1949It is true that in Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Phillips, 117 Ga. 98 ( 43 S. E. 494 ), the author of the opinion expressed some doubt as to the correctness of the rule first above stated as to the necessity of pleading and proof, in view of the provision of the Code of 1895, § 5231, as to judicial cognizance, but the question was not then raised for decision and no ruling was made thereon.

1949In Wells v. Gress, 118 Ga. 566, 568 ( 45 S. E. 418 ), it was stated that, “Where it is proper under the pleadings or evidence, the judge may of his own motion resort to the statutes and decisions of the sister State as to the law thereof,” citing Chattanooga, Rome and Columbus R.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942Attention, however, may be here called to the fact that the statement in the opinion in the Allen case, supra, to the effect that in Dupre v. State, 153 Ga. 798 (10) ( 113 S. E. 428 ), “this court held that no error was shown” in the charge there under review, was inaccurate; the judgment, as to the attack made on such charge, having been affirmed by an equally divided court; but■ appropriately it might have been said in the Allen case, as in Meyers v. State, 169 Ga. 468, 483 ( 151 S. E. 31 ), “Eor a full discussion of the cases bear *717 ing upon this question see DuPre v. State, 153 Ga. 798

1942Attention, however, may be here called to the fact that the statement in the opinion in the Allen case, supra, to the effect that in Dupre v. State, 153 Ga. 798 (10) ( 113 S. E. 428 ), “this court held that no error was shown” in the charge there under review, was inaccurate; the judgment, as to the attack made on such charge, having been affirmed by an equally divided court; but■ appropriately it might have been said in the Allen case, as in Meyers v. State, 169 Ga. 468, 483 ( 151 S. E. 31 ), “Eor a full discussion of the cases bear *717 ing upon this question see DuPre v. State, 153 Ga. 798

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942Attention, however, may be here called to the fact that the statement in the opinion in the Allen case, supra, to the effect that in Dupre v. State, 153 Ga. 798 (10) ( 113 S. E. 428 ), “this court held that no error was shown” in the charge there under review, was inaccurate; the judgment, as to the attack made on such charge, having been affirmed by an equally divided court; but■ appropriately it might have been said in the Allen case, as in Meyers v. State, 169 Ga. 468, 483 ( 151 S. E. 31 ), “Eor a full discussion of the cases bear *717 ing upon this question see DuPre v. State, 153 Ga. 798

1942Attention, however, may be here called to the fact that the statement in the opinion in the Allen case, supra, to the effect that in Dupre v. State, 153 Ga. 798 (10) ( 113 S. E. 428 ), “this court held that no error was shown” in the charge there under review, was inaccurate; the judgment, as to the attack made on such charge, having been affirmed by an equally divided court; but■ appropriately it might have been said in the Allen case, as in Meyers v. State, 169 Ga. 468, 483 ( 151 S. E. 31 ), “Eor a full discussion of the cases bear *717 ing upon this question see DuPre v. State, 153 Ga. 798

1942Attention, however, may be here called to the fact that the statement in the opinion in the Allen case, supra, to the effect that in Dupre v. State, 153 Ga. 798 (10) ( 113 S. E. 428 ), “this court held that no error was shown” in the charge there under review, was inaccurate; the judgment, as to the attack made on such charge, having been affirmed by an equally divided court; but■ appropriately it might have been said in the Allen case, as in Meyers v. State, 169 Ga. 468, 483 ( 151 S. E. 31 ), “Eor a full discussion of the cases bear *717 ing upon this question see DuPre v. State, 153 Ga. 798

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1942You may or may not do it.” As to the correctness of this instruction, see Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269 (6); Cyrus v. State, 102 Ga. 616 (2) ( 29 S. E. 917 ); Elder v. State, 143 Ga. 383 (3) ( 85 S. E. 197 ); Hugle v. State, 147 Ga. 35 (5) ( 92 S. E. 646 ); Wheat v. State, 187 Ga. 480 (3) ( 1 S. E. 2d, 1 ); and compare Allen v. State, 187 Ga. 178 (5) 200 S. E. 109 ), relating to argument of the solicitor-general.

1941Indeed this doctrine is applicable to any situation where influence was acquired or confidence reposed in fact, whether the basis of the relation is moral, social, domestic, or merely personal.” The correctness of the rule was recognized in Causey v. Wiley, 27 Ga. 444, where Judge McDonald said: “The learned chancellor seems to have laid down the sound rule, and the only rule which can protect, effectually, weak men from the machinations of artful men of superior mind, *843 viz.: that upon proof of weak mind, and that the instrument was executed without consideration, or was improvident or pro

1941Indeed this doctrine is applicable to any situation where influence was acquired or confidence reposed in fact, whether the basis of the relation is moral, social, domestic, or merely personal.” The correctness of the rule was recognized in Causey v. Wiley, 27 Ga. 444, where Judge McDonald said: “The learned chancellor seems to have laid down the sound rule, and the only rule which can protect, effectually, weak men from the machinations of artful men of superior mind, *843 viz.: that upon proof of weak mind, and that the instrument was executed without consideration, or was improvident or pro

1939Wright v. Gamble, 136 Ga. 376 ( 71 S. E. 795 , Ann.

1939Wright v. Gamble, 136 Ga. 376 ( 71 S. E. 795 , Ann.