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.
15 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Calloway v. Stategreen2 sentences2013At the outset, we note that on an appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.4 And we do not “weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility,”5 but focus solely on whether “the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address each of Arnold’s enumerations of error in turn. 3 The judge who presided over the trial was not the same judge who previously accepted Arnold’s plea and 2013At the outset, we note that on an appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.4 And we do not “weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility,”5 but focus solely on whether “the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address each of Arnold’s enumerations of error in turn. 3 The judge who presided over the trial was not the same judge who previously accepted Arnold’s plea and | 1 | 2 |
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2022See id. 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 ( 91 SCt 160 , 27 LE2d 162) (1970). 2022See id. 1 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25 ( 91 SCt 160 , 27 LE2d 162) (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Humphrey v. Nancegreen2 sentences2020See Humphrey v. Nance, 293 Ga. 189, 192 (II) (A) (1) ( 744 SE2d 706 ) (2013) (“[I]n reviewing trial counsel’s performance, we ask only whether some reasonable lawyer at the trial could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted at trial.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 2020See Humphrey v. Nance, 293 Ga. 189, 192 (II) (A) (1) ( 744 SE2d 706 ) (2013) (“[I]n reviewing trial counsel’s performance, we ask only whether some reasonable lawyer at the trial could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted at trial.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Millsaps v. the Stategreen2 sentences2019On appeal from the denial of a plea in bar and motion to dismiss, this Court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for clear error, but “independently examines the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo.” Millsaps v. State, 341 Ga. App. 337, 337 ( 801 SE2d 63 ) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2019On appeal from the denial of a plea in bar and motion to dismiss, this Court reviews the trial court’s factual findings for clear error, but “independently examines the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo.” Millsaps v. State, 341 Ga. App. 337, 337 ( 801 SE2d 63 ) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bunn v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 413 (3) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008). 2017See Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 413 (3) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Hassel v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See former OCGA § 24-3-5 (now codified at OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (E)); *545 Hassel v. State, 294 Ga. 834, 839-840 (3) ( 755 SE2d 134 ) (2014). 2016See former OCGA § 24-3-5 (now codified at OCGA § 24-8-801 (d) (2) (E)); *545 Hassel v. State, 294 Ga. 834, 839-840 (3) ( 755 SE2d 134 ) (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Stategreen2 sentences2013At the outset, we note that on an appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.4 And we do not “weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility,”5 but focus solely on whether “the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address each of Arnold’s enumerations of error in turn. 3 The judge who presided over the trial was not the same judge who previously accepted Arnold’s plea and 2013At the outset, we note that on an appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.4 And we do not “weigh the evidence or resolve issues of witness credibility,”5 but focus solely on whether “the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 6 With these guiding principles in mind, we will now address each of Arnold’s enumerations of error in turn. 3 The judge who presided over the trial was not the same judge who previously accepted Arnold’s plea and | 1 | 1 |
McDowell v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See generally McDowell v. State of Ga., 290 Ga. App. 538, n. 1 ( 660 SE2d 24 ) (2008). 2010See generally McDowell v. State of Ga., 290 Ga. App. 538, n. 1 ( 660 SE2d 24 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2005OCGA § 17-10-2(a); Anderson v. State, 199 Ga.App. 559, 560-561 (3), 405 S.E.2d 558 (1991). 6. 2005OCGA § 17-10-2(a); Anderson v. State, 199 Ga.App. 559, 560-561 (3), 405 S.E.2d 558 (1991). 6. | 1 | 1 |
Shabazz v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her 2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her | 1 | 1 |
Peeples v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her 2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. 2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. | 1 | 1 |
Camphor v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. 2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. | 1 | 1 |
Kunselman v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. 2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. 2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her 2001Here, Arnold’s motion in limine merely objected to the introduction of evidence identifying the specific charges underlying his probation and to references of a “probationary warrant.” Arnold never objected to use of the phrase “felony warrant.” 16 See Shabazz v. State, 229 Ga. App. 465, 467 (2) ( 494 SE2d 257 ) (1997). 17 See id. 18 See Johnson v. State, 222 Ga. App. 722, 729 (11) ( 475 SE2d 918 ) (1996). 19 See Peeples v. State, 234 Ga. App. 454, 457-458 (4) ( 507 SE2d 197 ) (1998). 20 Because Arnold failed to object during or after closing arguments to one of the statements he relies on her | 1 | 1 |
Philmore v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. 2001See Miller v. State, 267 Ga. 92 (2) ( 475 SE2d 610 ) (1996). 21 See Allen v. State, 210 Ga. App. 447, 450 (4) ( 436 SE2d 559 ) (1993). 22 263 Ga. 67 ( 428 SE2d 329 ) (1993). 23 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 69 (3). 24 Id. 25 272 Ga. 408, 414-415 (6) (d) ( 529 SE2d 121 ) (2000). 26 Id. at 414 . 27 232 Ga. App. 323, 324 (1) ( 501 SE2d 834 ) (1998). 28 (Emphasis in original.) Camphor, supra at 415 (quoting Kunselman, supra at 324 ). 29 See id. | 1 | 1 |
LaRue v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Having said that, “[t]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) LaRue v. State, 137 Ga. App. 762, 764 ( 224 SE2d 837 ) (1976). 1999Having said that, “[t]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) LaRue v. State, 137 Ga. App. 762, 764 ( 224 SE2d 837 ) (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Wolfe v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences1993Wolfe v. Rhodes, 166 Ga. App. 845, 847 ( 305 SE2d 606 ) (1983). 1993Wolfe v. Rhodes, 166 Ga. App. 845, 847 ( 305 SE2d 606 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnstongreen2 sentences1982However, in State v. Johnston, 160 Ga. App. 71, 73 ( 286 SE2d 47 ) (1981), this court held: “[T]he results of an intoximeter test, if improperly obtained, are subject to a motion to suppress or alternatively subject to an objection at the time the evidence is offered.” The evidence in this case is not sufficient to support Arnold’s motion to suppress. 1982However, in State v. Johnston, 160 Ga. App. 71, 73 ( 286 SE2d 47 ) (1981), this court held: “[T]he results of an intoximeter test, if improperly obtained, are subject to a motion to suppress or alternatively subject to an objection at the time the evidence is offered.” The evidence in this case is not sufficient to support Arnold’s motion to suppress. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Debra Kaye Scott
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Arnold v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Post v. State, Case No. S15A1189; Fripp v. State, Case No. S15A1190; Brown v. State, Case No. S15A1193. 2 The trial court’s denial of Arnold’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas was affirmed by this Court in Arnold v. State, 292 Ga. 95 ( 734 SE2d 382 ) (2012). 3 OCGA § 5-5-20 says: “In any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, the judge presiding may grant a new trial before another jury.” OCGA § 5-5-21 says: “The presiding judge may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict m 2015See Post v. State, Case No. S15A1189; Fripp v. State, Case No. S15A1190; Brown v. State, Case No. S15A1193. 2 The trial court’s denial of Arnold’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas was affirmed by this Court in Arnold v. State, 292 Ga. 95 ( 734 SE2d 382 ) (2012). 3 OCGA § 5-5-20 says: “In any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity, the judge presiding may grant a new trial before another jury.” OCGA § 5-5-21 says: “The presiding judge may exercise a sound discretion in granting or refusing new trials in cases where the verdict m | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.