11 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2005 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Butts v. Brooksgreen2 sentences1982The trial court did not err in giving appellee’s request to charge number 4 concerning the type of evidence required to establish the defense of arson, as appellant made only a general objection thereto. “ ‘To be reviewable an objection to a trial court’s charge must be more than a mere general objection which points out no specific defect; the objection must be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the court and afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct any error in his charge without the necessity o 1982The trial court did not err in giving appellee’s request to charge number 4 concerning the type of evidence required to establish the defense of arson, as appellant made only a general objection thereto. “ ‘To be reviewable an objection to a trial court’s charge must be more than a mere general objection which points out no specific defect; the objection must be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the court and afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct any error in his charge without the necessity o | 2 | 3 |
Calhoun v. Purvisgreen2 sentences1993Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 86 (2) ( 424 SE2d 368 ) (1992). “[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.” Calhoun v. Purvis, 206 Ga. App. 565, 568 (2) ( 425 SE2d 901 ) (1992). 1993Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 86 (2) ( 424 SE2d 368 ) (1992). “[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.” Calhoun v. Purvis, 206 Ga. App. 565, 568 (2) ( 425 SE2d 901 ) (1992). | 2 | 2 |
Hilliard v. Canton Wholesale Co.green2 sentences2004“The rationale underlying the requirement that the objection be sufficiently specific is to insure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instructions prior to verdict so that the necessity of an appeal will be obviated.” (Citations omitted.) Hilliard v. Canton Wholesale Co., 151 Ga. App. 184, 186 (3) ( 259 SE2d 182 ) (1979). 2004“The rationale underlying the requirement that the objection be sufficiently specific is to insure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instructions prior to verdict so that the necessity of an appeal will be obviated.” (Citations omitted.) Hilliard v. Canton Wholesale Co., 151 Ga. App. 184, 186 (3) ( 259 SE2d 182 ) (1979). | 1 | 2 |
Nixon v. Rosenthalgreen2 sentences2005See Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (2) ( 571 SE2d 361 ) (2002) (Defendant waived claim that trial court erred in failing to excuse juror for cause where defendant did not move to excuse juror for cause during voir dire examination.); Nixon v. Rosenthal, 214 Ga. App. 446 (1) ( 448 SE2d 45 ) (1994) (“ ‘[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges ... should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.’ ”). 2. 2005See Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (2) ( 571 SE2d 361 ) (2002) (Defendant waived claim that trial court erred in failing to excuse juror for cause where defendant did not move to excuse juror for cause during voir dire examination.); Nixon v. Rosenthal, 214 Ga. App. 446 (1) ( 448 SE2d 45 ) (1994) (“ ‘[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges ... should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.’ ”). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (2) ( 571 SE2d 361 ) (2002) (Defendant waived claim that trial court erred in failing to excuse juror for cause where defendant did not move to excuse juror for cause during voir dire examination.); Nixon v. Rosenthal, 214 Ga. App. 446 (1) ( 448 SE2d 45 ) (1994) (“ ‘[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges ... should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.’ ”). 2. 2005See Phillips v. State, 275 Ga. 595 (2) ( 571 SE2d 361 ) (2002) (Defendant waived claim that trial court erred in failing to excuse juror for cause where defendant did not move to excuse juror for cause during voir dire examination.); Nixon v. Rosenthal, 214 Ga. App. 446 (1) ( 448 SE2d 45 ) (1994) (“ ‘[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges ... should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.’ ”). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Bedeski v. Atlanta Coliseum, Inc.green2 sentences1998“To be reviewable on appeal, an objection to the jury charge must be unmistakable in directing the attention of the trial court to the claimed error and must point out distinctly the portion of the charge challenged; the grounds of error must be stated with sufficient particularity to leave no doubt as to the portion of the charge challenged or as to the specific ground of challenge, and must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed. [Cit.] Such specificity is required to ensure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instruct 1998“To be reviewable on appeal, an objection to the jury charge must be unmistakable in directing the attention of the trial court to the claimed error and must point out distinctly the portion of the charge challenged; the grounds of error must be stated with sufficient particularity to leave no doubt as to the portion of the charge challenged or as to the specific ground of challenge, and must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed. [Cit.] Such specificity is required to ensure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instruct | 1 | 1 |
Strozier v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1993Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 86 (2) ( 424 SE2d 368 ) (1992). “[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.” Calhoun v. Purvis, 206 Ga. App. 565, 568 (2) ( 425 SE2d 901 ) (1992). 1993Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85, 86 (2) ( 424 SE2d 368 ) (1992). “[A] challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial.” Calhoun v. Purvis, 206 Ga. App. 565, 568 (2) ( 425 SE2d 901 ) (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Farmer v. State
green
1 sentence1995Farmer, supra; Hawkins, supra; Levesque, supra. To give the court the opportunity to correct any error at that time, or earlier, and to preserve review of any alleged error, Malone would have to object after the court concluded its pre-evidentiary remarks and before the main charge, which he did not do. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hawkins v. State
green
1 sentence1995Farmer, supra; Hawkins, supra; Levesque, supra. To give the court the opportunity to correct any error at that time, or earlier, and to preserve review of any alleged error, Malone would have to object after the court concluded its pre-evidentiary remarks and before the main charge, which he did not do. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.
green
1 sentence1994However, “a challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson [v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U. S. 614 (111 SC 2077, 114 LE2d 660)] should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Sparks
green
2 sentences1992As in Sparks, supra, 257 Ga. at 98 , we will not reject the Batson/Edmonson claim as untimely “because there have been no judicial guidelines regarding the time and manner in which such a claim is to be presented, and because [plaintiffs’] motion in this regard was made relatively promptly in the course of the proceedings. ...” However, a challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial. 1992As in Sparks, supra, 257 Ga. at 98 , we will not reject the Batson/Edmonson claim as untimely "because there have been no judicial guidelines regarding the time and manner in which such a claim is to be presented, and because [plaintiffs'] motion in this regard was made relatively promptly in the course of the proceedings. ..." However, a challenge to the alleged use of racially discriminatory peremptory challenges in a civil trial under Edmonson should be raised no later than would preserve the opportunity to correct any violation without resetting the trial. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Christiansen v. Robertson
green
1 sentence1976To satisfy the Supreme Court’s ruling in Christiansen v. Robertson, supra, we submit this to be correct: "To be reviewable an objection to a trial court’s charge must be more than a mere general objection which points out no specific defect; the objection must be sufficiently specific to bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the court and afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct any error in his charge without the necessity of an appeal. [Cits.]” Butts v. Brooks, 138 Ga. App. 653, 654 ( 227 SE2d 76 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.