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.
21 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Bundel, 308 Ga. at 319 (explaining that a “trial court has no duty to hold [ ] a hearing [on a motion for new trial] on its own initiative”); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 171, 173 (575 SE2d 456) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err by ruling that the appellant’s lawyer waived the right to a hearing on the motion for new trial by failing to appear); Wilson, 277 Ga. at 198 (explaining that when no hearing on a motion for new trial is requested, “only the right to a hearing is waived”). 2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap | 1 | 2 |
Sherrington v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2023However, Rule 1000-4.3 states that to be effective, objections to a judicial officer presiding over parties’ matters must be “served on all parties . . . at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing or at least five (5) business days prior to 9 Id. at 271-272. 10 Harrison v. Whitaker, 361 Ga. App. 36 , 37 (1) ( 862 SE2d 597 ) (2021). 11 See Sherrington, 306 Ga. App. at 271 . 6 the date a matter shall be ripe for a ruling or adjudication.”12 Because Perrie’s Rule 1000-4 motion was filed the day before the parties’ final hearing, it was untimely and the trial court’s failure to 2023However, Rule 1000-4.3 states that to be effective, objections to a judicial officer presiding over parties’ matters must be “served on all parties . . . at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing or at least five (5) business days prior to 9 Id. at 271-272. 10 Harrison v. Whitaker, 361 Ga. App. 36 , 37 (1) ( 862 SE2d 597 ) (2021). 11 See Sherrington, 306 Ga. App. at 271 . 6 the date a matter shall be ripe for a ruling or adjudication.”12 Because Perrie’s Rule 1000-4 motion was filed the day before the parties’ final hearing, it was untimely and the trial court’s failure to | 1 | 1 |
In Re SJgreen2 sentences2023P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8 ) (1997); In the Interest of S. J., 270 Ga. App. 598, 607 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 225 ) (2004). a scheduled hearing or properly incorporating it into its order and the record; (3) granting a continuance in the absence of good cause; and (4) finding that clear and convincing evidence established continued dependency. 2023P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8 ) (1997); In the Interest of S. J., 270 Ga. App. 598, 607 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 225 ) (2004). a scheduled hearing or properly incorporating it into its order and the record; (3) granting a continuance in the absence of good cause; and (4) finding that clear and convincing evidence established continued dependency. | 1 | 1 |
Timbs v. Indianagreen2 sentences2023The Claimant specifically relied on Timbs v. Indiana,2 in which the United States Supreme Court held that the protection provided by the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment was applicable to the states and that civil in rem forfeitures fell within the Clause’s protection when they were at least partially punitive.3 2 __ U. S. __ ( 139 SCt 682 , 203 LE2d 11) (2019). 3 Timbs, 139 SCt at 689 (I) (B), 690 (II) (A). 2 After several continuances, the trial court scheduled a hearing. 2023The Claimant specifically relied on Timbs v. Indiana,2 in which the United States Supreme Court held that the protection provided by the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment was applicable to the states and that civil in rem forfeitures fell within the Clause’s protection when they were at least partially punitive.3 2 __ U. S. __ ( 139 SCt 682 , 203 LE2d 11) (2019). 3 Timbs, 139 SCt at 689 (I) (B), 690 (II) (A). 2 After several continuances, the trial court scheduled a hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Grot v. Capital One Bank (USA), N. A.green1 sentence2022Ellis has not shown by the record that, after the trial court cancelled the scheduled hearing—in accordance with the parties’ consent to stay all proceedings—she complied with Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3 by filing a “written request made in a separate pleading bearing the caption of the case and entitled ‘Request for Oral Hearing’ . . . . “ Grot, 317 Ga. App. at 792 (5) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bundel v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Bundel, 308 Ga. at 319 (explaining that a “trial court has no duty to hold [ ] a hearing [on a motion for new trial] on its own initiative”); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 171, 173 (575 SE2d 456) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err by ruling that the appellant’s lawyer waived the right to a hearing on the motion for new trial by failing to appear); Wilson, 277 Ga. at 198 (explaining that when no hearing on a motion for new trial is requested, “only the right to a hearing is waived”). 2021See, e.g., Bundel, 308 Ga. at 319 (explaining that a “trial court has no duty to hold . . . a hearing [on a motion for new trial] on its own initiative”); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 171, 173 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err by ruling that the appellant’s lawyer waived the right to a hearing on the motion for new trial by failing to appear); Wilson, 277 Ga. at 198 (explaining that when no hearing on a motion for new trial is requested, “only the right to a hearing is waived”). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Bundel, 308 Ga. at 319 (explaining that a “trial court has no duty to hold [ ] a hearing [on a motion for new trial] on its own initiative”); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 171, 173 (575 SE2d 456) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err by ruling that the appellant’s lawyer waived the right to a hearing on the motion for new trial by failing to appear); Wilson, 277 Ga. at 198 (explaining that when no hearing on a motion for new trial is requested, “only the right to a hearing is waived”). 2021See, e.g., Bundel, 308 Ga. at 319 (explaining that a “trial court has no duty to hold . . . a hearing [on a motion for new trial] on its own initiative”); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 171, 173 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not err by ruling that the appellant’s lawyer waived the right to a hearing on the motion for new trial by failing to appear); Wilson, 277 Ga. at 198 (explaining that when no hearing on a motion for new trial is requested, “only the right to a hearing is waived”). | 1 | 1 |
C & S Industrial Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co.green2 sentences2020Supply Co. v Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 199 Ga. App. 197, 198 ( 404 SE2d 346 ) (1991) (sanctions pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 a nullity when issued after voluntary dismissal filed only minutes before a scheduled hearing on the motion for sanctions). 2020Supply Co. v Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 199 Ga. App. 197, 198 ( 404 SE2d 346 ) (1991) (sanctions pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 a nullity when issued after voluntary dismissal filed only minutes before a scheduled hearing on the motion for sanctions). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Wernergreen1 sentence2020Compare Harris, 278 Ga. App. at 167 (rule does not apply to OCGA § 9-15-14 motions). | 1 | 1 |
Moody v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Page v. Guingreen2 sentences2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap 2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Mimms v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap 2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, Inc.green2 sentences2014OCGA § 9-10-160. 5 See Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, 219 Ga. App. at 835 (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance where, inter alia, the appellants conceded that they could not meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-10-160.). 6 See In re Estate of Jackson, 241 Ga. App. at 393-394 (1) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a party’s motion for a continuance so that he could attend a scheduled hearing after his release from prison, where there was no showing that he would, in fact, be released from prison on the anticipated r 2014OCGA § 9-10-160. 5 See Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, 219 Ga. App. at 835 (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance where, inter alia, the appellants conceded that they could not meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-10-160.). 6 See In re Estate of Jackson, 241 Ga. App. at 393-394 (1) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a party’s motion for a continuance so that he could attend a scheduled hearing after his release from prison, where there was no showing that he would, in fact, be released from prison on the anticipated r | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Jacksongreen1 sentence2014OCGA § 9-10-160. 5 See Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, 219 Ga. App. at 835 (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance where, inter alia, the appellants conceded that they could not meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-10-160.). 6 See In re Estate of Jackson, 241 Ga. App. at 393-394 (1) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a party’s motion for a continuance so that he could attend a scheduled hearing after his release from prison, where there was no showing that he would, in fact, be released from prison on the anticipated r | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2012See Ellis v. Caldwell, 290 Ga. 336 ( 720 SE2d 628 ) (2012) (party may waive hearing on a motion for attorney fees). 2012See Ellis v. Caldwell, 290 Ga. 336 ( 720 SE2d 628 ) (2012) (party may waive hearing on a motion for attorney fees). | 1 | 1 |
Childs v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Columbus v. State, 270 Ga. at 664-665 (4); see Childs v. State, 287 Ga. 488, 494 (7) ( 696 SE2d 670 ) (2010) (The defendant failed to present any evidence at the motion for new trial hearing to show that his defense was prejudiced because his trial counsel failed to interview a certain witness before trial.).10 Accordingly, Williams cannot prevail on this alleged error. 4. 2012Columbus v. State, 270 Ga. at 664-665 (4); see Childs v. State, 287 Ga. 488, 494 (7) ( 696 SE2d 670 ) (2010) (The defendant failed to present any evidence at the motion for new trial hearing to show that his defense was prejudiced because his trial counsel failed to interview a certain witness before trial.).10 Accordingly, Williams cannot prevail on this alleged error. 4. | 1 | 1 |
Columbus v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Columbus v. State, 270 Ga. at 664-665 (4); see Childs v. State, 287 Ga. 488, 494 (7) ( 696 SE2d 670 ) (2010) (The defendant failed to present any evidence at the motion for new trial hearing to show that his defense was prejudiced because his trial counsel failed to interview a certain witness before trial.).10 Accordingly, Williams cannot prevail on this alleged error. 4. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See also Martinez v. State, 289 Ga. 160, 161-162 (2) (b) ( 709 SE2d 797 ) (2011) (The defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to request a continuance so that a witness could be located, because appellate counsel failed to present the witness’ testimony during the motion for new trial hearing.). 2012See also Martinez v. State, 289 Ga. 160, 161-162 (2) (b) ( 709 SE2d 797 ) (2011) (The defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to request a continuance so that a witness could be located, because appellate counsel failed to present the witness’ testimony during the motion for new trial hearing.). | 1 | 1 |
Becker v. Fairmangreen2 sentences2003On January 10, 2003, the trial court denied the motions to set aside or correct errors, and Head appealed from this order on February 10, 2003. “[U]nlike a motion for new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Becker v. Fairman, 167 Ga. App. 708, 709 (1) ( 307 SE2d 520 ) (1983). 2003On January 10, 2003, the trial court denied the motions to set aside or correct errors, and Head appealed from this order on February 10, 2003. “[U]nlike a motion for new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Becker v. Fairman, 167 Ga. App. 708, 709 (1) ( 307 SE2d 520 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875, 877 ( 287 SE2d 7 ). 1996See Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875, 877 ( 287 SE2d 7 ). | 1 | 1 |
Jacobs v. Stategreen2 sentences1988See Jacobs v. State, 133 Ga. App. 812 (1) ( 212 SE2d 468 ) (1975). 1988See Jacobs v. State, 133 Ga. App. 812 (1) ( 212 SE2d 468 ) (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rlbb Acquisition, LLC v. Baer
green
1 sentence2025At that hearing, Appellants’ counsel claimed that the failure to respond to discovery in the renewal action was not wilful because “written discovery was done in the previous case” and that the defendants’ discovery requests in the renewal action were 8 “identical[.]”4 Rather than offer reasons demonstrating that the failure to respond was accidental, see RLBB Acquisition, 329 Ga. App. at 487 , Appellants’ counsel focused on the discovery that had been completed in the original action, challenged the conduct of the defendants’ counsel, and claimed that the case had “sat” because of the defenda | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In the Interest of J. P.
green
2 sentences2023P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8 ) (1997); In the Interest of S. J., 270 Ga. App. 598, 607 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 225 ) (2004). a scheduled hearing or properly incorporating it into its order and the record; (3) granting a continuance in the absence of good cause; and (4) finding that clear and convincing evidence established continued dependency. 2023P., 267 Ga. 492 ( 480 SE2d 8 ) (1997); In the Interest of S. J., 270 Ga. App. 598, 607 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 225 ) (2004). a scheduled hearing or properly incorporating it into its order and the record; (3) granting a continuance in the absence of good cause; and (4) finding that clear and convincing evidence established continued dependency. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Cumming v. Flowers
green
1 sentence2020Additionally, the application required RLG to provide a letter from the Clayton County Board of Health, “indicating that the conditional use will make acceptable use of an existing or proposed septic system, or a letter from a public sewer provider 22 Id. 9 stating that the proposed conditional use shall be served by its utility.” Moreover, as in Flowers, the zoning ordinance at issue likewise mandated that a public hearing be scheduled for review of the conditional-use application within 60 days of its certification and notice to the parties of the scheduled hearing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Black v. State
neutral
1 sentence2019Cf. Mimms v. State, 254 Ga. App. 483, 485-86 (1) ( 562 SE2d 754 ) (2002) (trial court did not err in denying a motion for new trial without a hearing when the defendant’s attorney failed to show up to the scheduled hearing without a valid leave of absence in place), aff’d sub nom., Jones v. State, 276 10 Ga. 171 ( 575 SE2d 456 ) (2003); Page v. Ginn, 187 Ga. App. 143, 145 (1) ( 369 SE2d 517 ) (1988) (trial court was “justified in deciding the motion [for new trial] on the briefs originally submitted” where parties had abandoned their right to a hearing on the motion); Moody v. State, 14 Ga. Ap | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wright v. Young
green
2 sentences2016Wright v. Young, 297 Ga. 683 ( 777 SE2d 475 ) (2015). 1 On remand, the trial court scheduled a hearing, and Husband filed a request for an order requiring the authorities to produce him to the court to attend the hearing, but this request was denied. 2016Wright v. Young, 297 Ga. 683 ( 777 SE2d 475 ) (2015). 1 On remand, the trial court scheduled a hearing, and Husband filed a request for an order requiring the authorities to produce him to the court to attend the hearing, but this request was denied. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Shockley v. State
green
2 sentences2002A defendant is generally entitled to a hearing on her motion for new trial, Shockley v. State, 230 Ga. 869 ( 199 SE2d 791 ) (1973), but the right to a hearing can be waived. 2002A defendant is generally entitled to a hearing on her motion for new trial, Shockley v. State, 230 Ga. 869 ( 199 SE2d 791 ) (1973), but the right to a hearing can be waived. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Turner v. Marta
neutral
2 sentences1994Then, when a demand for jury trial had not been filed with the Court Administrator within 30 days after the arbitration award as required by the rule (appellants filed their demand with the clerk of court), appellees moved for entry of judgment pursuant to Turner v. MARTA, 197 Ga. App. 447 ( 398 SE2d 794 ) (1990). 2 Prior to a scheduled hearing on that motion, 3 appellants filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). 1994Then, when a demand for jury trial had not been filed with the Court Administrator within 30 days after the arbitration award as required by the rule (appellants filed their demand with the clerk of court), appellees moved for entry of judgment pursuant to Turner v. MARTA, 197 Ga. App. 447 ( 398 SE2d 794 ) (1990). 2 Prior to a scheduled hearing on that motion, 3 appellants filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Felton Pearson Co. v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1991Felton Pearson Co. v. Nelson, 260 Ga. 513 ( 397 SE2d 431 ) (1990). 1991Felton Pearson Co. v. Nelson, 260 Ga. 513 ( 397 SE2d 431 ) (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Goodwin v. Richmond
green
2 sentences1989OCGA § 9-11-6 (d); Goodwin v. Richmond, 182 Ga. App. 745 ( 356 SE2d 888 ) (1987). 1989OCGA § 9-11-6 (d); Goodwin v. Richmond, 182 Ga. App. 745 ( 356 SE2d 888 ) (1987). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.