case is within principle in Georgia

12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1877–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Curlee v. Mock Enterprises, Inc.green gactapp · 1985 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1993–2003 2 sentences 2003Where the facts are undisputed, “the question of whether the case is within the bar of the statute is one of law for the court.” (Citations omitted.) Curlee v. Mock Enterprises, 173 Ga. App. 594, 596 (2) ( 327 SE2d 736 ) (1985). 2003Where the facts are undisputed, “the question of whether the case is within the bar of the statute is one of law for the court.” (Citations omitted.) Curlee v. Mock Enterprises, 173 Ga. App. 594, 596 (2) ( 327 SE2d 736 ) (1985).	2	2
Morris v. Johnstonegreen ga · 1931 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1985–2021 2 sentences 2021As applied to former paragraph (d) (1), “childhood sexual abuse” was defined as “any act committed by the defendant against facts are not disputed, the question of whether the case is within the bar of the statute is one of law for the court” (citing Morris v. Johnstone, 172 Ga. 598, 605 ( 158 SE 308 ) (1931)). 24 the plaintiff which act occurred when the plaintiff was under 18 years of age and which act would be in violation of” several enumerated crimes as prohibited by Georgia statutes, including rape, child molestation, incest, sexual battery, and aggravated sexual battery. 2021As applied to former paragraph (d) (1), “childhood sexual abuse” was defined as “any act committed by the defendant against facts are not disputed, the question of whether the case is within the bar of the statute is one of law for the court” (citing Morris v. Johnstone, 172 Ga. 598, 605 ( 158 SE 308 ) (1931)). 24 the plaintiff which act occurred when the plaintiff was under 18 years of age and which act would be in violation of” several enumerated crimes as prohibited by Georgia statutes, including rape, child molestation, incest, sexual battery, and aggravated sexual battery.	1	2
Deep Six, Inc. v. Abernathygreen gactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Furthermore, “the construction of a contract is a question of law for the court based on the intent of the parties as set forth in the contract. . . .” (Footnote omitted.) Deep Six v. Abernathy, 246 Ga. App. 71, 73 (2) ( 538 SE2d 886 ) (2000); see OCGA § 13-2-1. 2003Furthermore, “the construction of a contract is a question of law for the court based on the intent of the parties as set forth in the contract. . . .” (Footnote omitted.) Deep Six v. Abernathy, 246 Ga. App. 71, 73 (2) ( 538 SE2d 886 ) (2000); see OCGA § 13-2-1.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Durden v. Carhart & Brother neutral ga · 1870 2 sentences 1887John son, trustee, 59 Ga. 106 (citing 41 Ga. 76 ; 48 Id. 551). 1877Exceptions to the general rule are made by statute, but this case is within the rule itself. 41 Ga., 76; 48 Ib. 551. 2.	2	1877–1887
Daniel & Johnson v. Trice neutral ga · 1860 1 sentence 1936This case is within the principle ruled in Daniel v. Trice, 31 Ga. 162 ; Finney v. Cadwallader, 55 Ga. 75 and International Harvester Co. v. Adams, 135 Ga. 104 (6) ( 68 S. E. 1093 ).	1	1936–1936
Finney v. Cadwallader green ga · 1875 1 sentence 1936This case is within the principle ruled in Daniel v. Trice, 31 Ga. 162 ; Finney v. Cadwallader, 55 Ga. 75 and International Harvester Co. v. Adams, 135 Ga. 104 (6) ( 68 S. E. 1093 ).	1	1936–1936
International Harvester Co. of America v. Adams neutral ga · 1910 2 sentences 1936This case is within the principle ruled in Daniel v. Trice, 31 Ga. 162 ; Finney v. Cadwallader, 55 Ga. 75 and International Harvester Co. v. Adams, 135 Ga. 104 (6) ( 68 S. E. 1093 ). 1936This case is within the principle ruled in Daniel v. Trice, 31 Ga. 162 ; Finney v. Cadwallader, 55 Ga. 75 and International Harvester Co. v. Adams, 135 Ga. 104 (6) ( 68 S. E. 1093 ).	1	1936–1936
Stanford v. New England Mortgage Security Co. green ga · 1899 1 sentence 1930So construing the petition, the case is within the principle announced in Mayor &c. of Moultrie v. Patterson, 109 Ga. 370 ( 34 S. E. 600 ), where a suit was instituted by a Confederate soldier claiming exemption under the above-mentioned Code section, before its amendment, to enjoin the city from arresting him, and from in any way interfering with his business as a peddler.	1	1930–1930
Mayor of Moultrie v. Patterson neutral ga · 1899 1 sentence 1930So construing the petition, the case is within the principle announced in Mayor &c. of Moultrie v. Patterson, 109 Ga. 370 ( 34 S. E. 600 ), where a suit was instituted by a Confederate soldier claiming exemption under the above-mentioned Code section, before its amendment, to enjoin the city from arresting him, and from in any way interfering with his business as a peddler.	1	1930–1930
Pause v. City of Atlanta green · 1896 2 sentences 1929The case is within the principle of Hamby v. Georgia Iron & Coal Co., supra, stating: “If the stipulation contemplates a new contract at the expiration of the two years, then it would be a renewal, and the execution of a new lease would be indispensable.” See also Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92 ( 26 S. E. 489 , 58 Am. 1929The case is within the principle of Hamby v. Georgia Iron & Coal Co., supra, stating: “If the stipulation contemplates a new contract at the expiration of the two years, then it would be a renewal, and the execution of a new lease would be indispensable.” See also Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92 ( 26 S. E. 489 , 58 Am.	1	1929–1929
Coleman v. State green gactapp · 1909 2 sentences 1912By demurrer to the accusation the point is made that the court will judicially know that one man can not do all the work of a “one-horse farm;” that the contract was really one where the accused was to furnish and pay for 'labor for the benefit of the prosecutors, and that the case is within the principle of the decision in Coleman v. State, 6 Ga. App. 398 (4), ( 65 S. E. 46 ).. 1912By demurrer to the accusation the point is made that the court will judicially know that one man can not do all the work of a “one-horse farm;” that the contract was really one where the accused was to furnish and pay for 'labor for the benefit of the prosecutors, and that the case is within the principle of the decision in Coleman v. State, 6 Ga. App. 398 (4), ( 65 S. E. 46 )..	1	1912–1912
Carver v. State neutral ga · 1898 2 sentences 1910This case is within the rule announced in Carver v. State, 105 Ga. 461 ( 30 S. E. 433 ), a case differing from this one only in the fact that the error there consisted in the courts submitting manslaughter to the jury, while the error here is that the jury acted without the instruction. 1910This case is within the rule announced in Carver v. State, 105 Ga. 461 ( 30 S. E. 433 ), a case differing from this one only in the fact that the error there consisted in the courts submitting manslaughter to the jury, while the error here is that the jury acted without the instruction.	1	1910–1910
Field v. Clark green · 1892 1 sentence 1909The case is within the principle of Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649” (12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. ed. 294).	1	1909–1909
Union Bridge Co. v. United States green · 1907 1 sentence 1909In Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364 (27 Sup. Ct. 367, 51 L. ed. 523), it was held, that “Congress, when enacting that navigation be freed from unreasonable obstructions arising from bridges which are of insufficient height or width of span, or are otherwise defective, may, without violating the constitutional prohibition against delegation of legislative or judicial power, impose upon an executive officer the duty of ascertaining what particular cases come within the prescribed rule.” And that “The provisions in §18 of the river and harbor act of 1899, 30 Stat. 1121 , 1153, pro	1	1909–1909

Where else courts name it

MI 50 (1871–1976) NY 44 (1824–1932) IA 25 (1859–1968) PA 25 (1863–2008) CA 23 (1859–2004) GA 12 (1877–2021) NE 12 (1887–1920) IN 11 (1851–1983) MN 10 (1888–1943) TX 9 (1859–2015) KS 9 (1897–1934) MA 9 (1836–1972) VA 8 (1890–1984) WI 7 (1878–1987) LA 6 (1915–1949) MO 5 (1877–1982) IL 5 (1867–1892) AL 5 (1926–1952) FL 4 (1923–1983) OK 4 (1880–1924) NC 4 (1843–1970) CO 3 (1873–1961) UT 3 (1928–1943) MT 3 (1913–1979) MS 3 (1871–1895) NJ 2 (1911–1926) OR 2 (1892–1933) WV 2 (1903–1968) MD 2 (1852–1858) ID 2 (1931–1941) NH 2 (1844–1891) KY 2 (1859–1956) WA 2 (1905–1913)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check