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 1924–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. McCroskeygreen2 sentences2016Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 11, 2015, and the trial court issued the order granting the motion to dismiss 16 days later on March 27, 2015. “[Wjhere evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days anticipated by USCR 6.2 for a response to be filed expires.” Phillips v. McCroskey, 234 Ga. App. 87, 88 (2) ( 506 SE2d 388 ) (1998). 2016Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 11, 2015, and the trial court issued the order granting the motion to dismiss 16 days later on March 27, 2015. “[Wjhere evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days anticipated by USCR 6.2 for a response to be filed expires.” Phillips v. McCroskey, 234 Ga. App. 87, 88 (2) ( 506 SE2d 388 ) (1998). | 4 | 4 |
Dearing v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Compare Garnett v. Murray, 281 Ga. 506, 507 (1), 639 S.E.2d 475 (2007) (supplemental brief filed by movant did not extend time for response); Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga.App. 198, 203 (3), 532 S.E.2d 751 (2000) ("Where evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days required by USCR 6.2 expires. [Cit.]"). 2007Compare Garnett v. Murray, 281 Ga. 506, 507 (1), 639 S.E.2d 475 (2007) (supplemental brief filed by movant did not extend time for response); Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga.App. 198, 203 (3), 532 S.E.2d 751 (2000) ("Where evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days required by USCR 6.2 expires. [Cit.]"). | 3 | 3 |
Kidd v. Ungergreen2 sentences2013In Kidd v. Unger, 207 Ga. App. 109, 110-111 (2) ( 427 SE2d 82 ) (1993), for example, we found no error in the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss without waiting 30 days after the motion was filed, because the court did not consider matters outside the pleadings but ruled “solely on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, a matter contained wholly within the purview of the pleadings.” In that case, however, the trial court held a hearing before dismissing the complaint, and the appeal does not address any issues of notice or evidence. 2013In Kidd v. Unger, 207 Ga. App. 109, 110-111 (2) ( 427 SE2d 82 ) (1993), for example, we found no error in the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss without waiting 30 days after the motion was filed, because the court did not consider matters outside the pleadings but ruled “solely on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, a matter contained wholly within the purview of the pleadings.” In that case, however, the trial court held a hearing before dismissing the complaint, and the appeal does not address any issues of notice or evidence. | 2 | 2 |
Lott v. Hatchergreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Lott v. Hatcher, 275 Ga. App. 424, 425 ( 620 SE2d 651 ) (2005) (“In other words, an admission in judicio applies only to the admission of fact and does not apply where the admission is merely the opinion or conclusion of the pleader as to law or fact.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 10 Appellants contend that it was within the discretion of the hearing officer to receive evidence in written form. 2023See, e.g., Lott v. Hatcher, 275 Ga. App. 424, 425 ( 620 SE2d 651 ) (2005) (“In other words, an admission in judicio applies only to the admission of fact and does not apply where the admission is merely the opinion or conclusion of the pleader as to law or fact.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 10 Appellants contend that it was within the discretion of the hearing officer to receive evidence in written form. | 1 | 1 |
Greene County School District v. Circle Y Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2015(Citations omitted.) Considine v. Murphy, 320 Ga. App. 316, 317-318 ( 739 SE2d 777 ) (2013). 2015(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Considine v. Murphy, 320 Ga. App. 316 , 317- 318 ( 739 SE2d 777 ) (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Garnett v. Murraygreen2 sentences2007Compare Garnett v. Murray, 281 Ga. 506, 507 (1), 639 S.E.2d 475 (2007) (supplemental brief filed by movant did not extend time for response); Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga.App. 198, 203 (3), 532 S.E.2d 751 (2000) ("Where evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days required by USCR 6.2 expires. [Cit.]"). 2007Compare Garnett v. Murray, 281 Ga. 506, 507 (1), 639 S.E.2d 475 (2007) (supplemental brief filed by movant did not extend time for response); Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga.App. 198, 203 (3), 532 S.E.2d 751 (2000) ("Where evidence is not required, a court has the discretion to rule on a motion to dismiss before the 30 days required by USCR 6.2 expires. [Cit.]"). | 1 | 1 |
Greer v. Stategreen1 sentence1976Very great discretion must necessarily be left to the presiding judge in the examination of witnesses; and unless he uses this discretion in violation of some principle of law, a reviewing court can not control the exercise of that discretion unless it is manifestly abused. [Cits.]” Greer v. State, 159 Ga. 85, 91 ( 125 SE 52 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. State
green
2 sentences2024For purposes of this appeal, we will recount the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing on the motions to suppress and also note the existence and nature of disputed evidence pertinent to the trial court’s express findings regarding Lopez-Cardona and Mendez and to the additional findings that may be required on remand.1 In June 2021, Lopez-Cardona and Mendez were indicted 1 We may “take notice of the undisputed facts” in this case, “even if the trial court did not.” Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 , 746 n.4 ( 770 SE2d 636 ) (2015). 2024For purposes of this appeal, we will recount the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing on the motions to suppress and also note the existence and nature of disputed evidence pertinent to the trial court’s express findings regarding Lopez-Cardona and Mendez and to the additional findings that may be required on remand.1 In June 2021, Lopez-Cardona and Mendez were indicted 1 We may “take notice of the undisputed facts” in this case, “even if the trial court did not.” Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 , 746 n.4 ( 770 SE2d 636 ) (2015). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Considine v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2015(Citations omitted.) Considine v. Murphy, 320 Ga. App. 316, 317-318 ( 739 SE2d 777 ) (2013). 2015(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Considine v. Murphy, 320 Ga. App. 316 , 317- 318 ( 739 SE2d 777 ) (2013). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Simpkins v. Simpkins
green
2 sentences2006Simpkins v. Simpkins, 278 Ga. 523 (1), 603 S.E.2d 275 (2004). 2006Simpkins v. Simpkins, 278 Ga. 523 (1), 603 S.E.2d 275 (2004). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Seay v. State
green
1 sentence1976Very great discretion must necessarily be left to the presiding judge in the examination of witnesses; and unless he uses this discretion in violation of some principle of law, a reviewing court can not control the exercise of that discretion unless it is manifestly abused. [Cits.]” Greer v. State, 159 Ga. 85, 91 ( 125 SE 52 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Thomasson v. State
green
1 sentence1924Thomasson v. State, 22 Ga. 499 (3), 504; Harris v. Central R. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.