11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barrett v. Georgia Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2023(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Boller, 311 Ga. App. at 695 - 696 (1) (a); accord Barrett v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 304 Ga. App. 667, 669 (1) ( 697 SE2d 217 ) (2010). 23 The trial court’s order and the argument of Smith’s Estate on appeal both focus primarily on McCans’ expert opinion for the establishment of a standard of care and, as the trial court put it, whether National EMS had a duty to “do more” to try to make contact with Smith. 2023(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Boller, 311 Ga. App. at 695 - 696 (1) (a); accord Barrett v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 304 Ga. App. 667, 669 (1) ( 697 SE2d 217 ) (2010). 23 The trial court’s order and the argument of Smith’s Estate on appeal both focus primarily on McCans’ expert opinion for the establishment of a standard of care and, as the trial court put it, whether National EMS had a duty to “do more” to try to make contact with Smith. | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Super Discount Markets, Inc.green2 sentences1998In this way, the defendant has the evidentiary burden as to the issue of the plaintiff’s negligence after it has been established or assumed for purposes of a motion for summary judgment that the defendant was negligent, i.e., that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a hazard on its premises. . . . *107 By re-establishing the evidentiary burdens to where they were at the time Alterman Foods was decided, we lighten the load placed on plaintiffs by more recent judicial decisions, and place on defendants that which is normally required of a defendant — the estab 1998In this way, the defendant has the evidentiary burden as to the issue of the plaintiff’s negligence after it has been established or assumed for purposes of a motion for summary judgment that the defendant was negligent, i.e., that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of a hazard on its premises. . . . *107 By re-establishing the evidentiary burdens to where they were at the time Alterman Foods was decided, we lighten the load placed on plaintiffs by more recent judicial decisions, and place on defendants that which is normally required of a defendant — the estab | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Further, the opinion states that "the Hickses must show that [shelter] was offered as an inducement to part with their child." As authority for the establishment of this requirement of proof of fact and burden of proof, Douglas v. State, 263 Ga. 748, 749 (3), 438 S.E.2d 361 (1994), is cited. 1997Further, the opinion states that "the Hickses must show that [shelter] was offered as an inducement to part with their child." As authority for the establishment of this requirement of proof of fact and burden of proof, Douglas v. State, 263 Ga. 748, 749 (3), 438 S.E.2d 361 (1994), is cited. | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Donnellygreen2 sentences1989The restriction and prohibition is against state action, not any religious action. “[T]he Constitution . . . affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 673 (104 SC 1355, 79 LE2d 604) (1984). 1989The restriction and prohibition is against state action, not any religious action. "[T]he Constitution . . . affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 673 (104 SC 1355, 79 LE2d 604) (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Ruffin v. Stategreen2 sentences1981See Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496 ( 246 SE2d 642 ) (1978) and Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 ( 252 SE2d 472 ) (1979). 1981See Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496 ( 246 SE2d 642 ) (1978) and Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 ( 252 SE2d 472 ) (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Alderman v. Stategreen2 sentences1981See Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496 ( 246 SE2d 642 ) (1978) and Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 ( 252 SE2d 472 ) (1979). 1981See Alderman v. State, 241 Ga. 496 ( 246 SE2d 642 ) (1978) and Ruffin v. State, 243 Ga. 95 ( 252 SE2d 472 ) (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boller v. Robert W. Woodruff Arts Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Boller, 311 Ga. App. at 695 - 696 (1) (a); accord Barrett v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 304 Ga. App. 667, 669 (1) ( 697 SE2d 217 ) (2010). 23 The trial court’s order and the argument of Smith’s Estate on appeal both focus primarily on McCans’ expert opinion for the establishment of a standard of care and, as the trial court put it, whether National EMS had a duty to “do more” to try to make contact with Smith. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Robinson v. Kroger Co.
green
1 sentence1998"By re-establishing the evidentiary burdens to where they were at the time Alterman Foods was decided, we lighten the load placed on plaintiffs by more recent judicial decisions, and place on defendants that which is normally required of a defendantthe establishment of a defense to liability." Robinson, supra at 748 , 493 S.E.2d 403 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Koehn v. Devereaux
green
1 sentence1988Koehn, supra. We find Walker Hauling to be no impediment to the establishment of the rule we announce in this case. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Bennett v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1975"One cannot complain of a judgment, order or ruling that his own conduct procured or aided in causing." Bennett v. Bennett, 210 Ga. 721 (2) ( 82 SE2d 653 ). 1975"One cannot complain of a judgment, order or ruling that his own conduct procured or aided in causing." Bennett v. Bennett, 210 Ga. 721 (2) ( 82 SE2d 653 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Berry v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1961In Berry v. Smith, 85 Ga. App. 710 (4) ( 70 S. E. 2d 62 ) this court held that the potential liability of an insurer under a liability insurance policy, dependent on the establishment of a claim by a third person against the estate, is an asset of the decedent’s estate, justifying the appointment of an administrator. 1961In Berry v. Smith, 85 Ga. App. 710 (4) ( 70 S. E. 2d 62 ) this court held that the potential liability of an insurer under a liability insurance policy, dependent on the establishment of a claim by a third person against the estate, is an asset of the decedent’s estate, justifying the appointment of an administrator. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Robinson v. Carroll
green
1 sentence1952The first case on this subject seems to be Robinson v. Dana’s Estate, 87 N. H. 114 ( 174 Atl. 772 ), where it was held that such liability by a liability insurer to an insured constitutes an asset of the insured justifying a grant of administration, although it is conditional'upon the maintenance by the injured person of an action and establishment of a liability against the insured or his estate, and although ultimately it may prove not to be owing to the deceased or his estate. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Barber
green
1 sentence1925Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 344 (4) ( 63 S. E. 270 ). 2. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter
green
1 sentence1925Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 344 (4) ( 63 S. E. 270 ). 2. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.