12 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the verdict). 2025See Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the verdict). | 2 | 2 |
ROBERTS v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Et Al.green2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
WILLIAMS v. HARVEYgreen2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
The Higbee Company v. Damien Solomongreen2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Powertel, Inc.green2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Chathamgreen2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
Esprit Log & Timber Frame Homes, Inc. v. Wilcoxgreen2 sentences2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the 2024The trial court’s order affirming the jury verdict also summarily noted that punitive damages were awarded without any further clarification. (affirming a jury verdict when, even if the trial court erred in announcing an incorrect standard in determining whether to admit evidence, there was overwhelming evidence to support it); Robinson v. State, 265 Ga. App. 481, 482 (1) ( 594 SE2d 696 ) (2004) (finding a trial court error harmless when overwhelming evidence supported the jury’s verdict and noting that the test for harmless error is whether it is “highly probable” the error contributed to the | 1 | 1 |
Jivens v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Like the Rule 403 standard, the test for harmless error is also difficult to meet, as we must determine “whether it is highly 56 probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Jivens v. State, 317 Ga. at 859, 863 (2) ( 896 SE2d 516 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). 2024Like the Rule 403 standard, the test for harmless error is also difficult to meet, as we must determine “whether it is highly 56 probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Jivens v. State, 317 Ga. at 859, 863 (2) ( 896 SE2d 516 ) (2023) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“The test for harmless error in a criminal case is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Long v. State, 265 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 595 SE2d 93 ) (2004). 2012“The test for harmless error in a criminal case is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Long v. State, 265 Ga. App. 605, 607 (1) ( 595 SE2d 93 ) (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen1 sentence2011Our Supreme Court has explained that the test for harmless error depends on several factors: Whether a violation of the Confrontation Clause is harmless depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. [Cits.]” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 684 (106 SC 1431, | 1 | 1 |
Hanson v. Stategreen2 sentences2004“The test for harmless error in a criminal case is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment.” (Citation omitted.) Hanson v. State, 263 Ga. App. 45, 46 (1) ( 587 SE2d 200 ) (2003). 2004“The test for harmless error in a criminal case is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment.” (Citation omitted.) Hanson v. State, 263 Ga. App. 45, 46 (1) ( 587 SE2d 200 ) (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Johnson v. State, *47 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976). 2003Johnson v. State, *47 238 Ga. 59, 61 ( 230 SE2d 869 ) (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Martinez v. State, 189 Ga. App. 69, 72 (2) ( 375 SE2d 123 ) (1988). 1993See Martinez v. State, 189 Ga. App. 69, 72 (2) ( 375 SE2d 123 ) (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Workman v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Workman v. State, 198 Ga. App. 455, 457 (1) ( 402 SE2d 76 ) (1991); Caito v. State, 130 Ga. App. 831, 837 (7) ( 204 SE2d 765 ) (1974). 1993Workman v. State, 198 Ga. App. 455, 457 (1) ( 402 SE2d 76 ) (1991); Caito v. State, 130 Ga. App. 831, 837 (7) ( 204 SE2d 765 ) (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Caito v. Stategreen2 sentences1993Workman v. State, 198 Ga. App. 455, 457 (1) ( 402 SE2d 76 ) (1991); Caito v. State, 130 Ga. App. 831, 837 (7) ( 204 SE2d 765 ) (1974). 1993Workman v. State, 198 Ga. App. 455, 457 (1) ( 402 SE2d 76 ) (1991); Caito v. State, 130 Ga. App. 831, 837 (7) ( 204 SE2d 765 ) (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Applying the test for harmless error set forth in Moore v. State, 254 Ga. 674, 677 ( 333 SE2d 605 ) (1985), we find that any error in admitting a photostatic copy of the check into evidence would not have influenced the jury’s verdict in any way. 1988Applying the test for harmless error set forth in Moore v. State, 254 Ga. 674, 677 ( 333 SE2d 605 ) (1985), we find that any error in admitting a photostatic copy of the check into evidence would not have influenced the jury’s verdict in any way. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1988See generally Smith v. State, 182 Ga. App. 623 (1) ( 356 SE2d 702 ) (for an error of constitutional magnitude the test for harmless error is that the "error [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of ... guilt"). 1988See generally Smith v. State, 182 Ga. App. 623 (1) ( 356 SE2d 702 ) (for an error of constitutional magnitude the test for harmless error is that the "error [is] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of ... guilt"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Collum v. State
green
2 sentences2011Collum v. State, 281 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 642 SE2d 640 ) (2007). 2011Collum v. State, 281 Ga. 719, 722 (2) ( 642 SE2d 640 ) (2007). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Oree v. State
green
1 sentence2006Oree, supra. Under these facts, it cannot be said that such a result would be “highly improbable.” Accordingly, Scott’s convictions for felony murder and cruelty to a child must be reversed. 5 As Scott’s remaining enumerations of error could occur on retrial, we will address them. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Frazier v. State
green
2 sentences2004Citing McDonald v. State, 249 Ga. App. 1 ( 548 SE2d 361 ) (2001), and Frazier v. State, 241 Ga. App. 125, 126 ( 524 SE2d 768 ) (1999), Long contends that the improper admission of the photograph could not be harmless error because, given Long’s denial of the charges on the stand and the lack of physical evidence, the issue was ultimately a credibility contest between Long and the victims. 2004Citing McDonald v. State, 249 Ga. App. 1 ( 548 SE2d 361 ) (2001), and Frazier v. State, 241 Ga. App. 125, 126 ( 524 SE2d 768 ) (1999), Long contends that the improper admission of the photograph could not be harmless error because, given Long’s denial of the charges on the stand and the lack of physical evidence, the issue was ultimately a credibility contest between Long and the victims. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McDonald v. State
green
2 sentences2004Citing McDonald v. State, 249 Ga. App. 1 ( 548 SE2d 361 ) (2001), and Frazier v. State, 241 Ga. App. 125, 126 ( 524 SE2d 768 ) (1999), Long contends that the improper admission of the photograph could not be harmless error because, given Long’s denial of the charges on the stand and the lack of physical evidence, the issue was ultimately a credibility contest between Long and the victims. 2004Citing McDonald v. State, 249 Ga. App. 1 ( 548 SE2d 361 ) (2001), and Frazier v. State, 241 Ga. App. 125, 126 ( 524 SE2d 768 ) (1999), Long contends that the improper admission of the photograph could not be harmless error because, given Long’s denial of the charges on the stand and the lack of physical evidence, the issue was ultimately a credibility contest between Long and the victims. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.