power rule (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

power rule in Georgia

12 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1937–2025 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Charles Gatesgreen
ca11 · 1993 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Nevertheless, “a court has the power to rule that a witness is incapable of testifying[.]” United States v. Gates, 10 F3d 765, 766 (I) (11th Cir. 1993) (construing Fed.

2019Under OCGA § 29-4-1 (a), a “court may appoint a guardian for an adult only if the court finds the adult lacks sufficient capacity to make or communicate significant responsible decisions concerning his health or safety.” This is not one of the statutory exceptions to OCGA § 24-6-601, which, as stated above, provides that “every person is competent to be a witness.” (Emphasis supplied.) In fact, “Rule 601 allows one not mentally competent to testify, and it assumes that jurors are capable of evaluating a witness’s testimony in light of the fact that he is not mentally competent, [although] a co

11
Doman v. Stapletongreen
gactapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Assn. 2018) (available at https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Construction_Arbitration_Rules_7May2018.pdf); see also Doman v. Stapleton , 256 Ga.App. 383 , 390 (2), 568 S.E.2d 509 (2002) (identical AAA rule in a different type of dispute).

2019Assn. 2018) (available at https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Construction_Arbitration_Rules_7May2018.pdf); see also Doman v. Stapleton , 256 Ga.App. 383 , 390 (2), 568 S.E.2d 509 (2002) (identical AAA rule in a different type of dispute).

11
DeClue v. City of Claytongreen
gactapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See DeClue v. City of Clayton, 246 Ga. App. 487, 493 (5) ( 540 SE2d 675 ) (2000).

2001See DeClue v. City of Clayton, 246 Ga. App. 487, 493 (5) ( 540 SE2d 675 ) (2000).

11
Harrison v. SOUTHERN TALC COMPANYgreen
ga · 1980 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987See, e.g., Harrison v. Southern Talc Co., 245 Ga. 212, 213 (3) ( 264 SE2d 2 ) (1980); Transport Ins.

1987See, e.g., Harrison v. Southern Talc Co., 245 Ga. 212, 213 (3) ( 264 SE2d 2 ) (1980); Transport Ins.

11
Lancaster v. Brandtgreen
gactapp · 1941 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1943–1943
2 sentences

1943Lancaster v. Brandt, 64 Ga. App. 429, 431 ( 13 S. E. 2d, 516 ).

1943Lancaster v. Brandt, 64 Ga. App. 429, 431 ( 13 S. E. 2d, 516 ).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
International Paper Company v. Kight neutral
ga · 1973
2 sentences

1975"A judgment which is not final, and not among those specified [in § 6-701], is appealable only where the trial judge within ten days of its entry certifies it for immediate review.” International Paper Co. v. Right, 230 Ga. 720 ( 198 SE2d 681 ). 3.

1975"A judgment which is not final, and not among those specified [in § 6-701], is appealable only where the trial judge within ten days of its entry certifies it for immediate review.” International Paper Co. v. Right, 230 Ga. 720 ( 198 SE2d 681 ). 3.

21973–1975
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan green
scotus · 1995
1 sentence

2025Id.

12025–2025
Kemiron Atlantic, Inc. v. Aguakem International, Inc. green
ca11 · 2002
1 sentence

2024As the Supreme Court of Texas recently explained after a thorough analysis of nationwide law, “the fact that the parties’ arbitration agreement may cover only some disputes while carving out others does not affect the fact that the delegation agreement clearly and unmistakenly requires the arbitrator to decide whether the present disputes must be resolved through 16 The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Kemiron Atlantic, Inc. v. Aguakem Intl., 290 F3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2002), cited by the contractor in its brief, does not require a different result as that case did not address the arbitrator’s juri

12024–2024
Company of Kingston v. Latona Trucking, Inc. green
ca2 · 1998
1 sentence

2024Appx. 786, 789-790 (II) (A) (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that arbitrator should decide issue of 8 conduct-based waiver based on AAA rule stating that the “arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement”); In re S&R Co. of Kingston v. Latona Trucking, 159 F3d 80 , 85-86 (III) (2nd Cir. 1998) (court not precluded from finding that a party waived arbitration by actively participating in litigation by AAA Rule stating “[n]o judicial proceeding by a party relating

12024–2024
Gibson v. Huffman green
gactapp · 2000
2 sentences

2005The parties stipulated that the arbitration rules in the record governed the arbitration claims in this proceeding, and Rule 1 (a) provides that “[t]he parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by the [AAA] without specifying particular rules.” Rule 7 (a) provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” “A trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting an in

2005The parties stipulated that the arbitration rules in the record governed the arbitration claims in this proceeding, and Rule 1 (a) provides that “[t]he parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by the [AAA] without specifying particular rules.” Rule 7 (a) provides that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.” “A trial court’s exercise of discretion in granting an in

12005–2005
In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings neutral
ga · 1985
1 sentence

1993In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 255 Ga. 241 ( 338 SE2d 864 ); Brown u.

11993–1993
Beckworth v. Beckworth green
ga · 1985
1 sentence

1993In re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 255 Ga. 241 ( 338 SE2d 864 ); Brown u.

11993–1993
Wright v. State neutral
gactapp · 1915
2 sentences

1937A. § 112, it is declared that “No civil suit shall be brought in any district court against any person by any original process [italics ours] or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” Jurisdiction itself is a term that is defined to be “the power of hearing and determining causes and doing justice in matters of complaint.” Wright v. State, 16 Ga. App

1937A. § 112, it is declared that “No civil suit shall be brought in any district court against any person by any original process [italics ours] or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.” Jurisdiction itself is a term that is defined to be “the power of hearing and determining causes and doing justice in matters of complaint.” Wright v. State, 16 Ga. App

11937–1937
Garfield Oil Mills v. Stephens green
gactapp · 1915
2 sentences

1937“The jurisdiction of a court is determined by its power or its lack of power to deal with a plaintiff’s petition.” Garfield Oil Mills v. Stephens, 16 Ga. App. 655 ( 85 S. E. 983 ).

1937“The jurisdiction of a court is determined by its power or its lack of power to deal with a plaintiff’s petition.” Garfield Oil Mills v. Stephens, 16 Ga. App. 655 ( 85 S. E. 983 ).

11937–1937

Where else courts name it

CA 97 (1874–2026) NY 83 (1887–2024) TX 61 (1914–2025) FL 35 (1918–2026) PA 29 (1851–2026) IL 22 (1903–2025) MA 22 (1851–2025) IN 18 (1873–2020) LA 17 (1995–2025) WA 17 (1950–2023) NJ 16 (1936–2021) AL 16 (1902–2026) CT 16 (1941–2023) MO 16 (1895–2022) WI 14 (1964–2018) OR 14 (1901–2021) GA 12 (1937–2025) NC 11 (1904–2021) MI 10 (2008–2023) KS 9 (1912–2022) IA 7 (1922–2023) WY 6 (1892–2014) MD 6 (1928–2000) KY 6 (1916–2024) MN 6 (1926–1982) AR 6 (1909–2016) AZ 6 (1973–2023) ID 5 (1921–1991) DE 5 (2014–2018) VA 5 (1905–2024) CO 5 (1998–2026) AK 5 (1983–1999) ME 4 (1917–2012) TN 4 (1950–2015) UT 4 (1936–2024) HI 4 (1984–2024) OH 3 (1907–1994) MS 3 (1984–2001) OK 3 (1915–2003) WV 3 (1909–2015) RI 3 (1970–1995) NE 3 (1904–1988) ND 2 (2016–2017) DC 2 (1984–2012) SC 2 (1959–2005)

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