14 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. Cookgreen2 sentences2025Nonetheless, we said (for the first time, with no citation) that litigants have a “duty” to expedite their election contests; trained our attention on the set of things the challenger failed to do to expedite the challenge; and affirmed a dismissal for mootness because “[t]he policy considerations underlying our mootness doctrine appl[ied] to the election challenge in this case.” Id. at 156. 2025Nonetheless, we said (for the first time, with no citation) that litigants have a “duty” to expedite their election contests; trained our attention on the set of things the challenger failed to do to expedite the challenge; and affirmed a dismissal for mootness because “[t]he policy considerations underlying our mootness doctrine appl[ied] to the election challenge in this case.” Id. at 157 . | 2 | 5 |
Dawkins-Haigler v. Andersongreen2 sentences2017See Dawkins-Haigler, supra, 301 Ga. at 28 . 2017See Dawkins-Haigler, supra, 301 Ga. at 28 . | 2 | 2 |
MILLER v. HODGEgreen1 sentence2025See also Miller, 319 Ga. at 549 (1) (dismissing timely appeal from timely election challenge because the policy considerations reflected in the Election Code “counsel the courts in limiting the exercise of jurisdiction”). | 1 | 1 |
City of Greenville v. Braygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. 2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Connergreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. 2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. | 1 | 1 |
Brockington v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 43 (90 SCt 206, 24 LE2d 209) (1969) (petition for writ of mandamus to compel election officials to include candidate on the ballot was moot after the election took place). 14 nine months, and the delay in consideration of this appeal is attributable to Miller’s failure to avail himself of the applicable procedures of the Election Code, further exacerbated by Miller’s request to submit additional briefing, delaying the trial court’s decision. 2024See, e.g., Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 43 (90 SCt 206, 24 LE2d 209) (1969) (petition for writ of mandamus to compel election officials to include candidate on the ballot was moot after the election took place). 14 nine months, and the delay in consideration of this appeal is attributable to Miller’s failure to avail himself of the applicable procedures of the Election Code, further exacerbated by Miller’s request to submit additional briefing, delaying the trial court’s decision. | 1 | 1 |
Swain v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2024Cf. Swain, 281 Ga. at 32 (2) (“While Swain’s status as a pro se litigant and his initial efforts to correct the deficiencies in service of process evoke sympathy for him, the public policy favoring swift resolution of election contests . . . dictate[s] that we uphold the trial court’s determination that . . . this case requires dismissal of Swain’s election contest petition.”). 6 We emphasize that we are applying these prudential considerations to Miller’s election contest claims under OCGA § 21-2-520 et seq., and that it may be proper under other circumstances for a court to determine that an | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Browngreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. 2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 ( 710 SE2d 143 ) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 ( 670 SE2d 98 ) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Arnold v. State, 286 Ga. 418, 420 (2) (687 SE2d 836) (2010) (documents not included in the official appellate record are not evidence that can be considered by the Court). 2024See Arnold v. State, 286 Ga. 418, 420 (2) (687 SE2d 836) (2010) (documents not included in the official appellate record are not evidence that can be considered by the Court). | 1 | 1 |
Hilliard v. Baldwingreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. 2024See, e.g., Hilliard v. Baldwin, 289 Ga. 213, 214 (710 SE2d 143) (2011) (“Since an election contest challenging the results of a primary election becomes moot after the general election has taken place and when the plaintiff does not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal, the appeal is dismissed as moot.” (citations and punctuation omitted)); City of Greenville v. Bray, 284 Ga. 641, 642 (670 SE2d 98) (2008) (dismissing appeal as moot where the interested party failed to seek a stay of the election prior to the general election taking place); Brooks, 282 Ga. | 1 | 1 |
Tharpe v. Stategreen2 sentences1992When[, as here,] no timely objection is interposed, the test for reversible error ... is whether the improper argument in reasonable probability changed the result of the trial.’ ” Tharpe v. State, 262 Ga. 110, 114 (16) ( 416 SE2d 78 ). 1992When[, as here,] no timely objection is interposed, the test for reversible error ... is whether the improper argument in reasonable probability changed the result of the trial.’ ” Tharpe v. State, 262 Ga. 110, 114 (16) ( 416 SE2d 78 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCreary v. Martin
green
2 sentences2025And a few years after that, in McCreary v. Martin, 281 Ga. 668 ( 642 SE2d 80 ) (2007), we cited this new “threshold duty” to act with dispatch and dismissed the appeal again because the “policy considerations underlying the mootness doctrine” applied. 2025And a few years after that, in McCreary v. Martin, 281 Ga. 668 ( 642 SE2d 80 ) (2007), we cited this new “threshold duty” to act with dispatch and dismissed the appeal again because the “policy considerations underlying the mootness doctrine” applied. | 3 | 2017–2025 |
Daniels v. Tearney
green
2 sentences1965The election is a waiver and estops such complaint.” Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 271 U.S. 208 (46 SC 491, 70 LE 908), citing Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415 (26 LE 187) and Grand Rapids & Indiana R. 1928Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 415 , 26 L. ed. 187; Grand Rapids & I. | 2 | 1928–1965 |
Payne v. Chatman
green
2 sentences2025When we did, in Payne v. Chatman, 267 Ga. 873 ( 485 SE2d 723 ) (1997), we dismissed the appeal, but not merely because the appellant failed to seek to advance his case with dispatch. 2025When we did, in Payne v. Chatman, 267 Ga. 873 ( 485 SE2d 723 ) (1997), we dismissed the appeal, but not merely because the appellant failed to seek to advance his case with dispatch. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sentry Indemnity Co. v. Sharif
green
2 sentences1983Co., supra; Sentry Indemnity Co. v. Sharif, 248 Ga. 395 ( 282 SE2d 907 ); and Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. 1983Co., supra; Sentry Indemnity Co. v. Sharif, 248 Ga. 395 ( 282 SE2d 907 ); and Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Ins. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. Osborn
green
1 sentence1965Co. v. Osborn, 193 U.S. 17 (24 SC 310, 48 LE 598). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Comm'n of Wis.
green
1 sentence1965The election is a waiver and estops such complaint.” Booth Fisheries Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 271 U.S. 208 (46 SC 491, 70 LE 908), citing Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U.S. 415 (26 LE 187) and Grand Rapids & Indiana R. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
McGinnis v. McGinnis
neutral
1 sentence1933In McGinnis v. McGinnis, 1 Ga. 496, 503 , this court discussed the doctrine of election, as follows: “To put the legatee to his election, it is only necessary that the instrument should clearly ascertain the property given; that it was manifestly the intention of the testator to dispose of the property which is not his own; and that the gifts are in such terms as are inconsistent with the notion that the donee can keep his own estate, and also take under the will, without defeating the intention of the testator. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Brooke v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
green
2 sentences1910Co., 3 Ga. App. 492 ( 60 S. E. 218 )).; 'and.as the court was without jurisdiction, the proceedings could pever amount to such an election as would bar the plaintiffs frpsm bringing a suit of which the court did have jurisdiction. 1910Co., 3 Ga. App. 492 ( 60 S. E. 218 )).; 'and.as the court was without jurisdiction, the proceedings could pever amount to such an election as would bar the plaintiffs frpsm bringing a suit of which the court did have jurisdiction. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Slater v. Kimbro
green
2 sentences1908Slater v. Kimbro, 91 Ga. 217 ( 18 S. E. 296 , 44 Am. 1908Slater v. Kimbro, 91 Ga. 217 ( 18 S. E. 296 , 44 Am. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.