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.
18 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of K. C. W.green1 sentence2025W., 297 Ga. App. 714, 717 (1) ( 678 SE2d 343 ) (2009) (where prior proceedings in the case made clear that the father’s mental capacity was an issue, the father could not claim “unfair surprise” when evidence on that issue was introduced at the termination of parental rights hearing). (b) During her cross-examination of the Department investigator, the father’s attorney asked if the mother had admitted to killing A. J. | 1 | 1 |
Acevedo v. Kimgreen1 sentence2023In concluding that the father stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, our Supreme Court held that “fixing the precise amount of a debt currently due under a contract or under an unclear prior judgment is a proper basis for a declaratory judgment action.” Id. at 634 (2). | 1 | 1 |
In the INTEREST OF R. D. Et Al., Children.green2 sentences2022D., 346 Ga. App. 257, 259-260 (1) ( 816 SE2d 132 ) (2018) (applying the test for dependency where DFCS filed a dependency petition and the trial court entered an order finding the children dependent). 7 On appeal, the father does not challenge the admission of the police records, and thus he has abandoned any claim that the records were inadmissible on hearsay or other evidentiary grounds. 2022D., 346 Ga. App. 257, 259-260 (1) ( 816 SE2d 132 ) (2018) (applying the test for dependency where DFCS filed a dependency petition and the trial court entered an order finding the children dependent). 7 On appeal, the father does not challenge the admission of the police records, and thus he has abandoned any claim that the records were inadmissible on hearsay or other evidentiary grounds. | 1 | 1 |
Hartzler v. the Stategreen2 sentences2022See Hartzler v. State, 332 Ga. App. 674, 680 (2), n. 22 ( 774 SE2d 738 ) (2015). 2022See Hartzler v. State, 332 Ga. App. 674, 680 (2), n. 22 ( 774 SE2d 738 ) (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2021See Reynolds v. Clark, 322 Ga. App. 788, 791 (1) ( 746 SE2d 266 ) (2013) (generally “[e]vidence must be presented from which the trial court can determine what portion of the total amount of attorney time and litigation expenses was attributable to the pursuit or defense of claims for which attorney fees are recoverable and what portion of the attorney’s time was spent on matters that are not recoverable”). 2021See Reynolds v. Clark, 322 Ga. App. 788, 791 (1) ( 746 SE2d 266 ) (2013) (generally “[e]vidence must be presented from which the trial court can determine what portion of the total amount of attorney time and litigation expenses was attributable to the pursuit or defense of claims for which attorney fees are recoverable and what portion of the attorney’s time was spent on matters that are not recoverable”). | 1 | 1 |
ServiceMaster Co., LP v. Martingreen2 sentences2020See ServiceMaster Co. v. Martin, 252 Ga. App. 751, 757 (2) (c) ( 556 SE2d 517 ) (2001) (trial court erred by failing to grant a motion to dismiss a claim for punitive damages when the only cause of action was for breach of contract). 4 The trial court’s order further connects the punitive damages to the breach of contract claim, stating that “[j]udgment is also entered for [Father] on his claim for punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs due to the unjustified and brazen manner in which Defendant, without a valid legal defense, has refused all payments and has been stubbornly litigious 2020See ServiceMaster Co. v. Martin, 252 Ga. App. 751, 757 (2) (c) ( 556 SE2d 517 ) (2001) (trial court erred by failing to grant a motion to dismiss a claim for punitive damages when the only cause of action was for breach of contract). 4 The trial court’s order further connects the punitive damages to the breach of contract claim, stating that “[j]udgment is also entered for [Father] on his claim for punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs due to the unjustified and brazen manner in which Defendant, without a valid legal defense, has refused all payments and has been stubbornly litigious | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Wardgreen2 sentences2020“Generally, an award of attorney fees is not available in Georgia unless authorized by statute or contract.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ward v. Ward, 289 Ga. 250, 251 (2) ( 710 SE2d 555 ) (2011). 2020“Generally, an award of attorney fees is not available in Georgia unless authorized by statute or contract.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ward v. Ward, 289 Ga. 250, 251 (2) ( 710 SE2d 555 ) (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Hulsey v. Hulseygreen1 sentence2019We disagree because “Georgia courts do not have the authority to award the federal income tax dependency exemption to a non-custodial parent.” Hulsey v. Hulsey, 300 Ga. 45, 45 ( 792 SE2d 6 We further discuss the travel deviation in the father’s cross-appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Hutto v. Huttogreen1 sentence2016Thus, OCGA § 19-9-23 did not require the trial court to grant Father’s motion to dismiss. (c) We turn next to OCGA § 19-9-24. 8 Father relies on subsection (b), which says that the primary physical custodian shall not be allowed to “maintain” a civil action for, among other things, change of visitation rights for “so long as visitation rights are withheld in violation of the custody order.” (Emphasis added.) Subsection (a) contains a reciprocal bar preventing a parent with visitation rights from maintaining a civil action for change of custody for “so long as custody of the child is withheld f | 1 | 1 |
Cason v. Casongreen2 sentences2010“Generally an award of attorney fees is not available unless supported by statute or contract. [Cits.]” Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296, 299 (3) ( 637 SE2d 716 ) (2006). 2010“Generally an award of attorney fees is not available unless supported by statute or contract. [Cits.]” Cason v. Cason, 281 Ga. 296, 299 (3) ( 637 SE2d 716 ) (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. McGeegreen2 sentences2009See Wood v. McGee, 241 Ga. 242, 243 , 244 S.E.2d 846 (1978). 2. 2009See Wood v. McGee, 241 Ga. 242, 243 , 244 S.E.2d 846 (1978). 2. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of C. M.green1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of K. A. B.green1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
In Re Cjgreen2 sentences2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), 2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
In Re Jg-S.green2 sentences2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), 2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of S. V.green2 sentences2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), 2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Drakegreen2 sentences2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), 2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Georgia Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2005The trial court also denied Father’s motion for new trial, ruling that, under Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521, 523 (2) ( 423 SE2d 383 ) (1992), DHR is not authorized to file a modification action on behalf of a child not receiving public assistance unless it can show the child’s need for additional support. 2005The trial court also denied Father’s motion for new trial, ruling that, under Allen v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 262 Ga. 521, 523 (2) ( 423 SE2d 383 ) (1992), DHR is not authorized to file a modification action on behalf of a child not receiving public assistance unless it can show the child’s need for additional support. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of A. M. R.green2 sentences2004The court may sooner terminate its order or extend its duration for further periods." OCGA § 15-11-58.1(a). [3] The presence of the father at the hearing was secured by transportation order entered by the juvenile court. [4] "No state or federal constitutional right to counsel is involved because [the actions set out in OCGA § 15-11-6(a) are] civil matter[s], not ... criminal proceeding[s]. [Cits.]" In the Interest of A.M.R., 230 Ga.App. 133, 136 (2), 495 S.E.2d 615 (1998). 2004The court may sooner terminate its order or extend its duration for further periods." OCGA § 15-11-58.1(a). [3] The presence of the father at the hearing was secured by transportation order entered by the juvenile court. [4] "No state or federal constitutional right to counsel is involved because [the actions set out in OCGA § 15-11-6(a) are] civil matter[s], not ... criminal proceeding[s]. [Cits.]" In the Interest of A.M.R., 230 Ga.App. 133, 136 (2), 495 S.E.2d 615 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Wardgreen2 sentences2000See Mitchell v. Ward, 231 Ga. 671, 672 ( 203 SE2d 484 ) (1974). 2000See Mitchell v. Ward, 231 Ga. 671, 672 ( 203 SE2d 484 ) (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chandler v. Chandler
green
2 sentences2017In Chandler v. Chandler, 261 Ga. 598 ( 409 SE2d 203 ) (1991), in a change of custody/contempt action, after the mother took the minor child out of the state without notice to the father in violation of the divorce decree, the trial court ordered that the mother have “ ‘no rights of visitation with the child except that she may visit with the child at such times and places and on such conditions as are agreed to in writing by the parties.’ ” Id. at 599 . 2017In Chandler v. Chandler, 261 Ga. 598 ( 409 SE2d 203 ) (1991), in a change of custody/contempt action, after the mother took the minor child out of the state without notice to the father in violation of the divorce decree, the trial court ordered that the mother have “ ‘no rights of visitation with the child except that she may visit with the child at such times and places and on such conditions as are agreed to in writing by the parties.’ ” Id. at 599 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re KCW
green
1 sentence2025W., 297 Ga. App. 714, 717 (1) ( 678 SE2d 343 ) (2009) (where prior proceedings in the case made clear that the father’s mental capacity was an issue, the father could not claim “unfair surprise” when evidence on that issue was introduced at the termination of parental rights hearing). (b) During her cross-examination of the Department investigator, the father’s attorney asked if the mother had admitted to killing A. J. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McCann V. McCraine
green
1 sentence2019In light of the foregoing, the Father’s challenge to the trial court’s order imposing an appeal bond is moot, and the appeal in Case No. A19A2119 is dismissed 13 for this reason.10 McCann v. McCraine, 228 Ga. 817 ( 188 SE2d 487 ) (1972); GOM Builders, LLC v. Renasant Bank, 328 Ga. App. 796 ( 762 SE2d 622 ) (2014). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
GOM Builders, LLC v. Renasant Bank
green
2 sentences2019In light of the foregoing, the Father’s challenge to the trial court’s order imposing an appeal bond is moot, and the appeal in Case No. A19A2119 is dismissed 13 for this reason.10 McCann v. McCraine, 228 Ga. 817 ( 188 SE2d 487 ) (1972); GOM Builders, LLC v. Renasant Bank, 328 Ga. App. 796 ( 762 SE2d 622 ) (2014). 2019In light of the foregoing, the Father’s challenge to the trial court’s order imposing an appeal bond is moot, and the appeal in Case No. A19A2119 is dismissed 13 for this reason.10 McCann v. McCraine, 228 Ga. 817 ( 188 SE2d 487 ) (1972); GOM Builders, LLC v. Renasant Bank, 328 Ga. App. 796 ( 762 SE2d 622 ) (2014). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Clark v. Clark
green
1 sentence2019In light of the foregoing, the Father’s challenge to the trial court’s order imposing an appeal bond is moot, and the appeal in Case No. A19A2119 is dismissed 13 for this reason.10 McCann v. McCraine, 228 Ga. 817 ( 188 SE2d 487 ) (1972); GOM Builders, LLC v. Renasant Bank, 328 Ga. App. 796 ( 762 SE2d 622 ) (2014). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In the Interest of M. R.
green
1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Mr
neutral
1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Cm
green
1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Kab
neutral
1 sentence2008In the Interest of M.R., 282 Ga.App. 91, 99 , 637 S.E.2d 743 (2006). [9] See In the Interest of K.A.B., 285 Ga.App. 537, 541 (1)(b), 646 S.E.2d 736 (2007). [10] (Punctuation omitted.) In the Interest of C.J., 279 Ga.App. 213, 217 (1), 630 S.E.2d 836 (2006). [11] See K.A.B., supra; C.J., supra; In the Interest of J.G.-S., 279 Ga.App. 102, 103 (1)(c), 630 S.E.2d 615 (2006). [12] OCGA § 15-11-54(a). [13] See Phillips v. Drake, 215 Ga.App. 210, 211 (2), 449 S.E.2d 879 (1994) (no abuse of discretion where trial court adopts proposed order of one party in child custody dispute). [14] Id. at 212 (2), | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Fulton County v. Amorous
green
2 sentences1911Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 614 (3), 615 ( 16 S. E. 201 ). (а) This is true though the child in the suit for damages alleged that, at the time of the acts complained of producing the damage, he was “seized and possessed in fee simple” of the premises. (б) If the father had not made the deed above referred to, he might have been able to recover nominal damages; but the execution of the deed barred him of this right. 2. 1911Fulton County v. Amorous, 89 Ga. 614 (3), 615 ( 16 S. E. 201 ). (а) This is true though the child in the suit for damages alleged that, at the time of the acts complained of producing the damage, he was “seized and possessed in fee simple” of the premises. (б) If the father had not made the deed above referred to, he might have been able to recover nominal damages; but the execution of the deed barred him of this right. 2. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.