Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marshall v. Marshallgreen2 sentences1993(Cit.) This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.” (Cits.)’ Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987).” Lee v. Henson, 198 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 402 SE2d 548 ) (1991). 1993(Cit.) This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.” (Cits.)’ Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987).” Lee v. Henson, 198 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 402 SE2d 548 ) (1991). | 3 | 4 |
Bharadia v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Simply put, the diligence requirement of Timberlake cannot operate to require a defendant to present evidence of new scientific developments to the court until the defendant is able to ascertain and prove the materiality of those developments, especially in light of the fact that “a convicted defendant may file only one extraordinary motion for new trial.” See id. (“[A] defendant who brings an extraordinary motion for new trial based on new scientific developments cannot prevail unless those developments are ‘so material that they would 21 probably produce a different verdict.’” (alteration ad 2020See Bharadia v. State, 297 Ga. 567, 570 (2) ( 774 SE2d 90 ) (2015) (“Good reason exists only where the moving party exercised due diligence but, due to circumstances beyond his control, was unable previously to discover the basis for the claim he now asserts.” (citations and punctuation omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Lee v. Hensongreen2 sentences1993(Cit.) This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.” (Cits.)’ Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987).” Lee v. Henson, 198 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 402 SE2d 548 ) (1991). 1993(Cit.) This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.” (Cits.)’ Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987).” Lee v. Henson, 198 Ga. App. 701, 702 ( 402 SE2d 548 ) (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Dick v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Dick, 248 Ga. at 900 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2020The State relies upon this Court’s decisions in Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 ( 314 SE2d 227 ) (1984),17 and Davis, 283 Ga. at 440 (2),18 for the proposition that Gates has failed to satisfy the diligence requirement due to the years-long delays in seeking to obtain physical evidence in the State’s possession, seeking DNA testing and analysis of such items, and then bringing a motion for new trial on the basis of any new evidence discovered. | 1 | 1 |
In re Greenegreen1 sentence2020See Bharadia v. State, 297 Ga. 567, 570 (2) ( 774 SE2d 90 ) (2015) (“Good reason exists only where the moving party exercised due diligence but, due to circumstances beyond his control, was unable previously to discover the basis for the claim he now asserts.” (citations and punctuation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Morse v. Flint River Community Hospitalgreen2 sentences1998See Morse v. Flint River Community Hosp., 215 Ga.App. 224 , 450 S.E.2d 253 (1994). 1998See Morse v. Flint River Community Hosp., 215 Ga.App. 224 , 450 S.E.2d 253 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Bagwell v. Parkergreen2 sentences1991See Bagwell v. Parker, 182 Ga. App. 313, 314 ( 355 SE2d 463 ) (1987). “ ‘(A) petition in equity would have been to no avail if [the appellant] knew or should have in the exercise of reasonable diligence discovered th[e] ground [asserted]. [Cit.] This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.’ [Cits.]” Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987). 1991See Bagwell v. Parker, 182 Ga. App. 313, 314 ( 355 SE2d 463 ) (1987). “ ‘(A) petition in equity would have been to no avail if [the appellant] knew or should have in the exercise of reasonable diligence discovered th[e] ground [asserted]. [Cit.] This same diligence rule applies where appellant uses a motion to set aside the judgment and he is precluded from using the ground which he had known or could have discovered through reasonable diligence.’ [Cits.]” Marshall v. Marshall, 257 Ga. 494, 495 ( 360 SE2d 572 ) (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Camp v. FIDELITY BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYgreen2 sentences1987Co., 129 Ga. App. 590, 590-91 ( 200 SE2d 332 ) (1973). 1987Co., 129 Ga. App. 590, 590-91 ( 200 SE2d 332 ) (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. ARAGUEL, SANDERS, &C.green2 sentences1983Although no previous hearing had been held regarding appellee’s entitlement to compensation in the instant case — appellant having voluntarily initiated benefits without a hearing pursuant to recent changes in the law — the above stated definition of “newly discovered evidence” is applicable, and the diligence requirement is judged on the basis of when compensation was voluntarily initiated rather than the date of the “first hearing.” See Anderson v. Araguel, Sanders, Carter & Swain, 163 Ga. App. 610, 612 ( 295 SE2d 750 ) (1982). *92 As noted above, the Board in the instant case refused to con 1983Although no previous hearing had been held regarding appellee’s entitlement to compensation in the instant case — appellant having voluntarily initiated benefits without a hearing pursuant to recent changes in the law — the above stated definition of “newly discovered evidence” is applicable, and the diligence requirement is judged on the basis of when compensation was voluntarily initiated rather than the date of the “first hearing.” See Anderson v. Araguel, Sanders, Carter & Swain, 163 Ga. App. 610, 612 ( 295 SE2d 750 ) (1982). *92 As noted above, the Board in the instant case refused to con | 1 | 1 |
Butts v. Davisgreen2 sentences1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). 1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Timberlake v. State
green
1 sentence2025To satisfy the Timberlake materiality requirement, a defendant must show that the evidence on which his extraordinary motion is based is “so material that it would probably produce a different verdict.” 22 Timberlake, 246 Ga. at 491 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2025Simply put, the diligence requirement of Timberlake cannot operate to require a defendant to present evidence of new scientific developments to the court until the defendant is able to ascertain and prove the materiality of those developments, especially in light of the fact that “a convicted defendant may file only one extraordinary motion for new trial.” See id. (“[A] defendant who brings an extraordinary motion for new trial based on new scientific developments cannot prevail unless those developments are ‘so material that they would 21 probably produce a different verdict.’” (alteration ad | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2020The trial court also determined that Gates had not shown that the State had suppressed evidence of the alleged prior walk- through of the crime scene in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963). 2020The trial court also determined that Gates had not shown that the State had suppressed evidence of the alleged prior walk- through of the crime scene in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 ( 83 SCt 1194 , 10 LE2d 215) (1963). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Llewellyn v. State
green
2 sentences2020The State relies upon this Court’s decisions in Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 ( 314 SE2d 227 ) (1984),17 and Davis, 283 Ga. at 440 (2),18 for the proposition that Gates has failed to satisfy the diligence requirement due to the years-long delays in seeking to obtain physical evidence in the State’s possession, seeking DNA testing and analysis of such items, and then bringing a motion for new trial on the basis of any new evidence discovered. 2020The State relies upon this Court’s decisions in Llewellyn v. State, 252 Ga. 426 ( 314 SE2d 227 ) (1984),17 and Davis, 283 Ga. at 440 (2),18 for the proposition that Gates has failed to satisfy the diligence requirement due to the years-long delays in seeking to obtain physical evidence in the State’s possession, seeking DNA testing and analysis of such items, and then bringing a motion for new trial on the basis of any new evidence discovered. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Renfroe v. Fouché
neutral
1 sentence1976Renfroe v. Fouche, 26 Ga. App. 340 (2), supra. Therefore, the correct standard of care applicable to the conduct of the Hospital in protecting the lights was ordinary care and the application of the slight diligence standard was error. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Joyner v. State
green
2 sentences1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). 1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Cochran v. State
green
2 sentences1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). 1973Additionally, this case falls squarely within the doctrine that "A party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” Joyner v. State, 208 Ga. 435 (2) ( 67 SE2d 221 ); Cochran v. State, 213 Ga. 706 (2) ( 100 SE2d 919 ); Butts v. Davis, 126 Ga. App. 311, 314 ( 190 SE2d 595 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.