stare decisis prohibits doctrine in Georgia

2025VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”); State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646, 658 (5) ( 697 SE2d 757 ) (2010) (“Stare decisis is an important principle that promotes the rule of law . . . .”); see also Kurt T.

2025VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”); State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646, 658 (5) ( 697 SE2d 757 ) (2010) (“Stare decisis is an important principle that promotes the rule of law . . . .”); see also Kurt T.

2025VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”); State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646, 658 (5) ( 697 SE2d 757 ) (2010) (“Stare decisis is an important principle that promotes the rule of law . . . .”); see also Kurt T.

2025VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”); State v. Jackson, 287 Ga. 646, 658 (5) ( 697 SE2d 757 ) (2010) (“Stare decisis is an important principle that promotes the rule of law . . . .”); see also Kurt T.

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2023VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); Whorton v. State, 321 Ga. App. 335, 339 (1) ( 741 SE2d 653 ) (2013) (“[V]ertical stare decisis dictates that we faithfully adhere to the precedents established by the Supreme Court of Georgia[.]”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 35 See Tiismann v. Linda Martin Homes Corp., 281 Ga. 137, 139 (1) ( 637 SE2d 14 ) (2006) (concluding that because Genera

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2017VI, § VI, ¶ VI (1983) (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 15 Hill, 482 U. S. at 462 (II); accord Johnson, 332 F3d at 212 (II) (B); United States v. Poocha, 259 F3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001); Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F3d 146, 159 (3) (2d Cir. 2001); Posr, 180 F3d at 415 (II) (C) (1) (“[T]he ‘fighting words’ doctrine is probably ‘narrower [in] application in cases in

2016VI, § VI, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 20 Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368, 370 (5) ( 359 SE2d 670 ) (1987) (emphasis added); see also Manzano v. State, 282 Ga. 557, 558-559 (2) ( 651 SE2d 661 ) (2007) (same); OCGA § 16-11-102 (“A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether th

2016VI, § VI, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 20 Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368, 370 (5) ( 359 SE2d 670 ) (1987) (emphasis added); see also Manzano v. State, 282 Ga. 557, 558-559 (2) ( 651 SE2d 661 ) (2007) (same); OCGA § 16-11-102 (“A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether th

2016VI, § VI, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 20 Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368, 370 (5) ( 359 SE2d 670 ) (1987) (emphasis added); see also Manzano v. State, 282 Ga. 557, 558-559 (2) ( 651 SE2d 661 ) (2007) (same); OCGA § 16-11-102 (“A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether th

2016VI, § VI, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 20 Rhodes v. State, 257 Ga. 368, 370 (5) ( 359 SE2d 670 ) (1987) (emphasis added); see also Manzano v. State, 282 Ga. 557, 558-559 (2) ( 651 SE2d 661 ) (2007) (same); OCGA § 16-11-102 (“A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether th

2013See Hendry v. Hendry, 292 Ga. 1, 2-3 ( 734 SE2d 46 ) (2012) (explaining that “[w]hen we consider the meaning of a statute, we look first to the text of the statute, and if the text is clear and unambiguous, we look no further, attributing to the statute its plain meaning,” and that “as we look to the words of a statute, we attribute to those words their ordinary, logical, and common meanings, unless a clear indication of some other meaning appears” (citations and punctuation omitted)); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits

2013See Hendry v. Hendry, 292 Ga. 1, 2-3 ( 734 SE2d 46 ) (2012) (explaining that “[w]hen we consider the meaning of a statute, we look first to the text of the statute, and if the text is clear and unambiguous, we look no further, attributing to the statute its plain meaning,” and that “as we look to the words of a statute, we attribute to those words their ordinary, logical, and common meanings, unless a clear indication of some other meaning appears” (citations and punctuation omitted)); State v. Smith, 308 Ga. App. 345, 352 (1) ( 707 SE2d 560 ) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits

2013See Pollard v. State, 265 Ga. App. 749, 751 (2) ( 595 SE2d 574 ) (2004) (“Whether consent was voluntarily given generally is a question of fact for the trial court.

2013See Pollard v. State, 265 Ga. App. 749, 751 (2) ( 595 SE2d 574 ) (2004) (“Whether consent was voluntarily given generally is a question of fact for the trial court.

2012See Ga. Const. Art. 6, § 6, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); see also State v. Smith, 308 Ga. *35 App. 345, 352 (1) (707 SE2d560) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 29 See City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 434, 438 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008) (holding that Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider constitutional issue because the trial court did not specifically or distinctly rule on the issue). 30 See Decatur Fed.

2012See Ga. Const. Art. 6, § 6, ¶ VI (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall bind all other courts as precedents.”); see also State v. Smith, 308 Ga. *35 App. 345, 352 (1) (707 SE2d560) (2011) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis prohibits this Court from ignoring the valid precedent of a higher court.”). 29 See City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 434, 438 (2) ( 668 SE2d 247 ) (2008) (holding that Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to consider constitutional issue because the trial court did not specifically or distinctly rule on the issue). 30 See Decatur Fed.

2012Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Litsky, 207 Ga. App. 752, 755 (2) ( 429 SE2d 300 ) (1993) (although trial court “took note” of constitutional argument in order, the issue was not ruled on and there was no ruling to review on appeal).

2012Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Litsky, 207 Ga. App. 752, 755 (2) ( 429 SE2d 300 ) (1993) (although trial court “took note” of constitutional argument in order, the issue was not ruled on and there was no ruling to review on appeal).