automatic requirement in Georgia

2007See Orr v. Sievert, 162 Ga.App. 677 ( 292 SE2d 548 ) (1982) (finding that [prior to HIPAA] the placing of one’s medical condition at issue in litigation acted as an automatic waiver of a patient’s right to privacy in his medical records related to that condition).

2007See Orr v. Sievert, 162 Ga.App. 677 ( 292 SE2d 548 ) (1982) (finding that [prior to HIPAA] the placing of one’s medical condition at issue in litigation acted as an automatic waiver of a patient’s right to privacy in his medical records related to that condition).

2006S., 265 Ga. App. 795, 797, n. 9 ( 595 SE2d 607 ) (2004) (“Separation for a year is not an automatic requirement prior to a termination.”).

2006S., 265 Ga. App. 795, 797, n. 9 ( 595 SE2d 607 ) (2004) (“Separation for a year is not an automatic requirement prior to a termination.”).

2022Conclusion For the reasons set out above, we answer the certified questions as follows: under Georgia law, a life-insurance policy taken out by the insured on his own life with the intent to sell the policy to a third party with no insurable interest, but without a third party’s involvement when the policy was procured, is not void as an illegal wagering contract.9 In light of this answer, we need not 9 We note that implicit in the Eleventh Circuit’s first certified question as originally posed is the suggestion that a policy would be void as an illegal wagering contract if, at the time the po

2022Co. v. City of College Park, 313 Ga. 294, 300-301 (2) ( 869 SE2d 492 ) (2022) (explaining that a statutory amendment creating an automatic waiver of sovereign immunity up to a specified amount necessarily displaced prior law about waivers up to that specified amount, but did not displace decisional and statutory law for waivers above the specified amount). 3.

2022Co. v. City of College Park, 313 Ga. 294, 300– 301 (2) (869 SE2d 492) (2022) (explaining that a statutory amendment creating an automatic waiver of sovereign immunity up to a specified amount necessarily displaced prior law about waivers up to that specified amount, but did not displace decisional and statutory law for waivers above the specified amount). 3.

2021Valloric v. Dravo Corp., 357 SE2d 207, 213 (W.

2017See Gates v. Glass, 291 Ga. 350, 352-353 ( 729 SE2d 361 ) (2012).

2017See Gates v. Glass, 291 Ga. 350, 352-353 ( 729 SE2d 361 ) (2012).

2015Thirty-nine states, as well as the District of Columbia, require a party to show some form of harm or prejudice to prevail on an appeal of a trial court’s failure to excuse a venire juror for cause.3 Their individual rules 2 Here, I assume for the sake of argument that the trial court should have struck juror number 9. 3 See Hammock v. State, 52 P3d 746, 750 (Alaska App. 2002) (Defendant used peremptory challenge to strike juror A.B., who the trial court erroneously failed to strike for cause, then exhausted his challenges.

2010See also Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204, 207 (2), n. 11 ( 636 SE2d 519 ) (2006); Curtis v. Curtis, 255 Ga. 288 ( 336 SE2d 770 ) (1985); Coley v. Coley, 128 Ga. 654, 655 (1) ( 58 SE 205 ) (1907). 1 In Grissom , however, a plurality of the Court departed from long-standing precedent and purported to overrule Curtis, supra, and other cases which adhered to the rule that “acceptance of any benefit under a final judgment and decree of divorce results in an automatic waiver of the right to appeal any aspect of that judgment.” Grissom, supra at 268 (1).

2010See also Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204, 207 (2), n. 11 ( 636 SE2d 519 ) (2006); Curtis v. Curtis, 255 Ga. 288 ( 336 SE2d 770 ) (1985); Coley v. Coley, 128 Ga. 654, 655 (1) ( 58 SE 205 ) (1907). 1 In Grissom , however, a plurality of the Court departed from long-standing precedent and purported to overrule Curtis, supra, and other cases which adhered to the rule that “acceptance of any benefit under a final judgment and decree of divorce results in an automatic waiver of the right to appeal any aspect of that judgment.” Grissom, supra at 268 (1).

2010See also Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204, 207 (2), n. 11 ( 636 SE2d 519 ) (2006); Curtis v. Curtis, 255 Ga. 288 ( 336 SE2d 770 ) (1985); Coley v. Coley, 128 Ga. 654, 655 (1) ( 58 SE 205 ) (1907). 1 In Grissom , however, a plurality of the Court departed from long-standing precedent and purported to overrule Curtis, supra, and other cases which adhered to the rule that “acceptance of any benefit under a final judgment and decree of divorce results in an automatic waiver of the right to appeal any aspect of that judgment.” Grissom, supra at 268 (1).

2010See also Smith v. Smith, 281 Ga. 204, 207 (2), n. 11 ( 636 SE2d 519 ) (2006); Curtis v. Curtis, 255 Ga. 288 ( 336 SE2d 770 ) (1985); Coley v. Coley, 128 Ga. 654, 655 (1) ( 58 SE 205 ) (1907). 1 In Grissom , however, a plurality of the Court departed from long-standing precedent and purported to overrule Curtis, supra, and other cases which adhered to the rule that “acceptance of any benefit under a final judgment and decree of divorce results in an automatic waiver of the right to appeal any aspect of that judgment.” Grissom, supra at 268 (1).

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

2006"In the absence of the relevant information, and there being a presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, it must be assumed that the [juvenile] court's findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence." Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 , 516 S.E.2d 73 (1999). [9] See In the Interest of H.D.T., supra at 866(b), 616 S.E.2d 196 ; In the Interest of D.D., 273 Ga.App. 839, 840-841 (2), 616 S.E.2d 179 (2005); In the Interest of L.G., 273 Ga.App. 468, 472 (2)(b), 615 S.E.2d 551 (2005). [10] See In the Interest of A.M.B., 219 Ga.App. 133, 135-136 , 464 S.E.2d 253 (1995)

1999See as to the stricter substantially similar defects requirement in product liability cases in general Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 544 (3) ( 436 SE2d 635 ) (1993).

1999See as to the stricter substantially similar defects requirement in product liability cases in general Mack Trucks v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 544 (3) ( 436 SE2d 635 ) (1993).

1999Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga. App. 875, 877-878 (1) ( 447 SE2d 302 ) (1994), i.e., that there be evidence showing that prior similar occurrences had sufficient substantial similarity to the case for admission to prove notice of the general danger, giving rise to foreseeability and to the duty of care, had been satisfied in this case when evidence established as to the other occurrences that the automatic warning system at the crossing came under federal regulations by being at public road crossings, that there was a public railroqd crossing, and that there had been a delayed activation fail

1999Motors Corp. v. Moseley, 213 Ga. App. 875, 877-878 (1) ( 447 SE2d 302 ) (1994), i.e., that there be evidence showing that prior similar occurrences had sufficient substantial similarity to the case for admission to prove notice of the general danger, giving rise to foreseeability and to the duty of care, had been satisfied in this case when evidence established as to the other occurrences that the automatic warning system at the crossing came under federal regulations by being at public road crossings, that there was a public railroqd crossing, and that there had been a delayed activation fail

1983“In ruling on the appellant’s motion, the trial judge appears to have based his decision not on an exercise of discretion, but on his opinion that, as a matter of law, the amendment was barred by the statute of limitation ... [T]he actual basis for the ruling does not appear in the order...” Downs v. Jones, 142 Ga. App. 317 , supra. The statute of limitation was not an automatic bar to appellant’s motion, and the sole issue was whether the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, would allow Cavalier to be added as a party plaintiff. “ ‘The adding or dropping of parties requires the exe

1983“In ruling on the appellant’s motion, the trial judge appears to have based his decision not on an exercise of discretion, but on his opinion that, as a matter of law, the amendment was barred by the statute of limitation ... [T]he actual basis for the ruling does not appear in the order...” Downs v. Jones, 142 Ga. App. 317 , supra. The statute of limitation was not an automatic bar to appellant’s motion, and the sole issue was whether the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, would allow Cavalier to be added as a party plaintiff. “ ‘The adding or dropping of parties requires the exe

1977See also Wood v. Lovelady, 176 Ga. 866 ( 169 SE 93 ) (1933).

1977See also Wood v. Lovelady, 176 Ga. 866 ( 169 SE 93 ) (1933).