97 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2025 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Suarez v. Halbertgreen2 sentences2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio 2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio | 15 | 15 |
Page v. Braddygreen2 sentences2012Page v. Braddy, 255 Ga. App. 124, 126 ( 564 SE2d 538 ) (2002) (“The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (punctuation omitted)). 2012Page v. Braddy, 255 Ga. App. 124, 126 ( 564 SE2d 538 ) (2002) (“The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (punctuation omitted)). | 10 | 10 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2019"In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State , 291 Ga. App. 249 , 251, 661 S.E.2d 865 (2008). 2019"In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State , 291 Ga. App. 249 , 251, 661 S.E.2d 865 (2008). | 4 | 5 |
Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhortergreen2 sentences2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhorter, 312 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 720 SE2d 270 ) (2011). 2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhorter, 312 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 720 SE2d 270 ) (2011). | 3 | 3 |
Laurel Baye Healthcare of MacOn, LLC v. Neubauergreen2 sentences2022When the issue is a question of law, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Laurel Baye Healthcare of Macon, LLC v. Neubauer, 315 Ga. App. 474, 475 ( 726 SE2d 670 ) (2012). 2022When the issue is a question of law, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Laurel Baye Healthcare of Macon, LLC v. Neubauer, 315 Ga. App. 474, 475 ( 726 SE2d 670 ) (2012). | 2 | 3 |
KEMP v. KEMP Et Al.green2 sentences2021Indeed, when only a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” Kemp v. Kemp, 337 Ga. App. 627, 632 ( 788 SE2d 517 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2021Indeed, when only a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” Kemp v. Kemp, 337 Ga. App. 627, 632 ( 788 SE2d 517 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Daniels v. Stategreen2 sentences2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011). 2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Slaick v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2014The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Slaick v. Arnold, 316 Ga. App. 141, 142 ( 728 SE2d 782 ) (2012). 2014The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Slaick v. Arnold, 316 Ga. App. 141, 142 ( 728 SE2d 782 ) (2012). | 2 | 2 |
CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp.green2 sentences2014“However, the court’s judgment in a non-jury trial will be reversed where it is apparent that it rests on erroneous reasoning or on an erroneous legal theory.” (Citations omitted.) CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213 Ga. App. 710, 721 (4) ( 445 SE2d 782 ) (1994) (finding that judgment must be reversed where trial court’s factual findings were inconsistent). 2014“However, the court’s judgment in a non-jury trial will be reversed where it is apparent that it rests on erroneous reasoning or on an erroneous legal theory.” (Citations omitted.) CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213 Ga. App. 710, 721 (4) ( 445 SE2d 782 ) (1994) (finding that judgment must be reversed where trial court’s factual findings were inconsistent). | 2 | 2 |
Carter v. Smithgreen2 sentences2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008). 2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Seeley v. Seeleygreen2 sentences2013“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Seeley v. Seeley, 282 Ga. App. 394, 395 (1) ( 638 SE2d 837 ) (2006). 2013“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Seeley v. Seeley, 282 Ga. App. 394, 395 (1) ( 638 SE2d 837 ) (2006). | 2 | 2 |
West v. BREAST CARE SPECIALISTS, LLCgreen2 sentences2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008). 2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008). | 2 | 2 |
Heiman v. Mayfieldgreen2 sentences2012Applying this standard, we must uphold the trial court’s determination that Waldrip intended to transfer all his property to the Trust if there is any evidence to support it, but we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that the Trust’s after-acquired property provisions effectively fulfilled this intention under the applicable law. (a) Intent — “Broadly speaking, the terms of a trust are whatever the settlor [ 2 ] intended them to be at the time of the creation of the trust, so long as those terms are permitted by law.” (Citation omitted.) Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879, 882 (1) ( 2012Applying this standard, we must uphold the trial court’s determination that Waldrip intended to transfer all his property to the Trust if there is any evidence to support it, but we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that the Trust’s after-acquired property provisions effectively fulfilled this intention under the applicable law. (a) Intent — “Broadly speaking, the terms of a trust are whatever the settlor [ 2 ] intended them to be at the time of the creation of the trust, so long as those terms are permitted by law.” (Citation omitted.) Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879, 882 (1) ( | 2 | 2 |
Deere Park & Associates v. C H Furniture Source, LLCgreen2 sentences2012See Deere Park & Assoc. v. C H Furniture Source, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 382 ( 674 SE2d 635 ) (2009). 2012See Deere Park & Assoc. v. C H Furniture Source, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 382 ( 674 SE2d 635 ) (2009). | 2 | 2 |
CRUSSELLE v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol. 2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol. | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Dammanngreen2 sentences2008“The construction, interpretation and legal effect of [a restrictive covenant] is an issue of law to which the appellate court applies the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga. App. 442, 444 (1) ( 626 SE2d 632 ) (2006). 2008“The construction, interpretation and legal effect of [a restrictive covenant] is an issue of law to which the appellate court applies the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga. App. 442, 444 (1) ( 626 SE2d 632 ) (2006). | 2 | 2 |
Epps v. Hingreen2 sentences2007When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Epps v. Hin, 255 Ga. App. 370, 371 ( 565 SE2d 577 ) (2002); Wright v. State, 284 Ga. App. 169 ( 643 SE2d 538 ) (2007). 2007When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Epps v. Hin, 255 Ga. App. 370, 371 ( 565 SE2d 577 ) (2002); Wright v. State, 284 Ga. App. 169 ( 643 SE2d 538 ) (2007). | 2 | 2 |
Glover v. Waregreen2 sentences2004But where, as here, there is no dispute as to the trial court’s findings of fact and the issue presented is one of law, “the issue for review [is] whether the trial court made a plain legal error.” Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40, 45 (3) ( 510 SE2d 895 ) (1999). 2004But where, as here, there is no dispute as to the trial court’s findings of fact and the issue presented is one of law, “the issue for review [is] whether the trial court made a plain legal error.” Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40, 45 (3) ( 510 SE2d 895 ) (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worleygreen2 sentences2018And when a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley , 312 Ga. App. 855 , 856, 720 S.E.2d 305 (2011) (footnote omitted). 2018And when a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley , 312 Ga. App. 855 , 856, 720 S.E.2d 305 (2011) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Hutcheson v. Elizabeth Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc.green2 sentences2019However, to the extent this case presents a question of law, the standard of review is "de novo, during which we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Hutcheson v. Elizabeth Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc. , 317 Ga. App. 123 , 125, 730 S.E.2d 514 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 1. 2019However, to the extent this case presents a question of law, the standard of review is "de novo, during which we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Hutcheson v. Elizabeth Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc. , 317 Ga. App. 123 , 125, 730 S.E.2d 514 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 1. | 1 | 2 |
GMC GROUP, INC. v. Harsco Corp.green2 sentences2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio 2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio | 1 | 2 |
Howland v. Wadsworthgreen1 sentence2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard. | 1 | 1 |
CARDINAL HEALTH INC. v. JOSEPH POPPELL (And Vice Versa)green1 sentence2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Nowlandgreen2 sentences2023Where there is an issue of law, and not of fact, the appellate court will apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations omitted.) Jackson v. Nowland, 338 Ga. App. 614, 617 (1) ( 791 SE2d 190 ) (2016). 2023Where there is an issue of law, and not of fact, the appellate court will apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations omitted.) Jackson v. Nowland, 338 Ga. App. 614, 617 (1) ( 791 SE2d 190 ) (2016). | 1 | 1 |
STEWART AUSBAND ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SERVPRO OF NORCROSS v. CARL HOLDENgreen2 sentences2023“Because this question is a legal one, we review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stewart Ausband Enterprises v. Holden, 349 Ga. App. 295, 297 (1) ( 826 SE2d 138 ) (2019). 2023“Because this question is a legal one, we review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stewart Ausband Enterprises v. Holden, 349 Ga. App. 295, 297 (1) ( 826 SE2d 138 ) (2019). | 1 | 1 |
Cosby v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2022However, the standard of review for a question of law on appeal is de novo, “during which we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Cosby v. Lewis, 308 Ga. App. 668, 679 (1) ( 708 SE2d 585 ) (2011). 2022However, the standard of review for a question of law on appeal is de novo, “during which we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Cosby v. Lewis, 308 Ga. App. 668, 679 (1) ( 708 SE2d 585 ) (2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Holtsclaw v. Holtsclawgreen | 1 | 1 |
Cascade Parc Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2021(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Brooks, 354 Ga. App. 78 , 79 ( 840 SE2d 156 ) (2020); see also Cascade Parc Property Owners Assn. v. Clark, 336 Ga. App. 94, 95 ( 783 SE2d 692 ) (2016). 2021(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Brooks, 354 Ga. App. 78 , 79 ( 840 SE2d 156 ) (2020); see also Cascade Parc Property Owners Assn. v. Clark, 336 Ga. App. 94, 95 ( 783 SE2d 692 ) (2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Clark v. Wadegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Luca v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eagle Jets, LLC v. Atlanta Jet, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Glisson v. Irha of Loganville, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Savannah Jaycees Foundation, Inc. v. Gottliebgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amy L. Hillman v. Anna Bordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harris v. Mahonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| PATEL Et Al. v. STATE OF GEORGIAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pure Hospitality Solutions, Inc. v. Canouse.green | 1 | 1 |
| Herrera v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mandt v. Lovellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crowell v. Williams
green
2 sentences2013The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crowell v. Williams, 273 Ga. App. 676 (1) ( 615 SE2d 797 ) (2005). 2013The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crowell v. Williams, 273 Ga. App. 676 (1) ( 615 SE2d 797 ) (2005). | 4 | 2010–2013 |
Harpe v. Hall
green
2 sentences2022When a question of law is at issue, such as whether an action is barred by the statute of limitation, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 2019"When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." (Citation omitted.) Harpe v. Hall , 266 Ga. App. 340 , 596 S.E.2d 666 (2004). | 3 | 2014–2022 |
Hong Investments, LLC v. Sarsfield
green
2 sentences2012The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hong Investments v. Sarsfield, 312 Ga. App. 82 ( 717 SE2d 679 ) (2011). 2012The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hong Investments v. Sarsfield, 312 Ga. App. 82 ( 717 SE2d 679 ) (2011). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| VASILE Et Al. v. ADDO green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Selective HR Solutions, Inc. v. Mulligan neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Mandt v. Lovell green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Thompson v. Princell green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Judice v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Slaick v. Arnold green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Godley Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Bowen green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Murphy v. Varner green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Timmons v. Cook green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wright v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Hart v. Hart green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.