party claiming error in Georgia

1987Anderson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 885, 887 (3) ( 303 SE2d 57 ) (1983).

1987Anderson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 885, 887 (3) ( 303 SE2d 57 ) (1983).

1989However, “[t]he burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, *572 but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]” Steward v. State, 180 Ga. App. 266, 267 ( 349 SE2d 18 ) (1986).

1989However, “[t]he burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, *572 but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]” Steward v. State, 180 Ga. App. 266, 267 ( 349 SE2d 18 ) (1986).

1984Leonard v. State, 146 Ga. App. 439, 443 (4) ( 246 SE2d 450 ) (1978).

1984Leonard v. State, 146 Ga. App. 439, 443 (4) ( 246 SE2d 450 ) (1978).

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

2014See Kennestone Hosp., Inc., supra, 273 Ga. at 149 (“Given the importance of the privilege in encouraging and protecting confidential communications concerning the emotional and mental health of individuals, . . . the silence and failure to act in response to a request for privileged matter . . . does not waive the party’s privilege by implication.”).

2014See Kennestone Hosp., Inc., supra, 273 Ga. at 149 (“Given the importance of the privilege in encouraging and protecting confidential communications concerning the emotional and mental health of individuals, . . . [the] silence and failure to act in response to a request for privileged matter ... does not waive the party’s privilege by implication.”).

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

2014Moreover, and of primary importance in this case, is the fact that unlike other recognized privileges, the psychiatrist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient.6 See Sims v. State, 251 Ga. 877, 881 ( 311 SE2d 161 ) (1984); 5 Applying these rules, our courts have determined that the privilege is not waived when a party claiming the privilege puts at issue in a civil proceeding the nature and extent of his or her emotional or mental injuries, see Mincey v. Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs, 308 Ga. App. 740, 745 ( 708 SE2d 644 ) (2011), is not waived when the person claiming the pri

1997(Cit.)’ [Cit.] We find no such error here.” Terry v. State, 190 Ga. App. 570, 571-572 (2) ( 379 SE2d 604 ) (1989). (a) The record shows that Wilson elected to testify on his own behalf, but also chose not to re-cross Watkins.

1997(Cit.)’ [Cit.] We find no such error here.” Terry v. State, 190 Ga. App. 570, 571-572 (2) ( 379 SE2d 604 ) (1989). (a) The record shows that Wilson elected to testify on his own behalf, but also chose not to re-cross Watkins.

1991E.g., Grogan v. State, 192 Ga. App. 234 ( 384 SE2d 441 ); Houston v. State, 187 Ga. App. 335, 337 (2), 338 ( 370 SE2d 178 ); Hall v. State, 181 Ga. App. 92 (1) ( 351 SE2d 236 ). “[The] primary consideration [is] whether defendant was deprived of any substantial rights in the State’s execution of the intent of the Rule. [Cit.] ‘The burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse.’ [C

1991E.g., Grogan v. State, 192 Ga. App. 234 ( 384 SE2d 441 ); Houston v. State, 187 Ga. App. 335, 337 (2), 338 ( 370 SE2d 178 ); Hall v. State, 181 Ga. App. 92 (1) ( 351 SE2d 236 ). “[The] primary consideration [is] whether defendant was deprived of any substantial rights in the State’s execution of the intent of the Rule. [Cit.] ‘The burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse.’ [C

1986As emphatically stated in Edwards v. State, 176 Ga. App. 369, 371 ( 337 SE2d 27 ) (1985): "Even assuming, for the purpose of argument only, that is was error . . . the burden is on a party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]" I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Pope join in this dissent.

1986As emphatically stated in Edwards v. State, 176 Ga. App. 369, 371 ( 337 SE2d 27 ) (1985): "Even assuming, for the purpose of argument only, that is was error . . . the burden is on a party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]" I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Pope join in this dissent.

2024(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) SunTrust Bank, 302 Ga. at 842-843 .4 Georgia courts have concluded that engaging in the following conduct before demanding arbitration in pending litigation is inconsistent with the arbitration right: engaging in extensive discovery;5 filing a motion for summary judgment;6 participating 4 In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U. S. 411 ( 142 SCt 1708 , 212 LE2d 753) (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not require a party claiming waiver to prove “prejudice.” 596 U. S. at 416-419 (II).

2024Compare Suntrust Bank, 302 Ga. at 843 (including prejudice to the other party in its determination of whether a party has waived its right to arbitrate under the totality of the circumstances).

2024(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) SunTrust Bank, 302 Ga. at 842-843 .4 Georgia courts have concluded that engaging in the following conduct before demanding arbitration in pending litigation is inconsistent with the arbitration right: engaging in extensive discovery;5 filing a motion for summary judgment;6 participating 4 In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U. S. 411 ( 142 SCt 1708 , 212 LE2d 753) (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not require a party claiming waiver to prove “prejudice.” 596 U. S. at 416-419 (II).

2024(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) SunTrust Bank, 302 Ga. at 842-843 .4 Georgia courts have concluded that engaging in the following conduct before demanding arbitration in pending litigation is inconsistent with the arbitration right: engaging in extensive discovery;5 filing a motion for summary judgment;6 participating 4 In Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U. S. 411 ( 142 SCt 1708 , 212 LE2d 753) (2022), the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not require a party claiming waiver to prove “prejudice.” 596 U. S. at 416-419 (II).

1999However, “[t]he burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse.” (Punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 221 Ga. App. 291, 296 ( 470 SE2d 922 ) (1996).

1999However, “[t]he burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right, an appellate court will not reverse.” (Punctuation omitted.) Williams v. State, 221 Ga. App. 291, 296 ( 470 SE2d 922 ) (1996).

1994Polley v. State, 203 Ga. App. 825, 827 (4) ( 418 SE2d 107 ) (1992).

1994Polley v. State, 203 Ga. App. 825, 827 (4) ( 418 SE2d 107 ) (1992).

1991In his last enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to present similar transaction evidence before presenting “any evidence concerning the charged offenses.” “The order in which evidence is allowed to be introduced, must rest, to a considerable extent, in the sound discretion of the presiding judge.” Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 140 (1) ( 51 SE 322 ).

1991In his last enumeration, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the State to present similar transaction evidence before presenting “any evidence concerning the charged offenses.” “The order in which evidence is allowed to be introduced, must rest, to a considerable extent, in the sound discretion of the presiding judge.” Williams v. State, 123 Ga. 138, 140 (1) ( 51 SE 322 ).

1991“The burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of constitutional or statutory rights, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]” Hadden v. State, 181 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 353 SE2d 532 ) (1987). 4.

1991“The burden is on the party claiming error not only to show error, but error which injured him, and unless the error results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes a substantial violation of constitutional or statutory rights, an appellate court will not reverse. [Cit.]” Hadden v. State, 181 Ga. App. 628, 630 (4) ( 353 SE2d 532 ) (1987). 4.