person asserting violation (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

person asserting violation in Georgia

10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Rodriguez v. Stategreen
ga · 2002 · cited in 4 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2009
2 sentences

2008If the person asserting the violation cannot make the foregoing showing, there is no need to continue with an equal protection analysis." Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283 (1), 565 S.E.2d 458 (2002) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2008If the person asserting the violation cannot make the foregoing showing, there is no need to continue with an equal protection analysis." Rodriguez v. State, 275 Ga. 283 (1), 565 S.E.2d 458 (2002) (citations and punctuation omitted).

34
Dunn v. Stategreen
ga · 2009 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012If the person asserting the violation cannot make the foregoing showing, there is no need to continue with an equal protection analysis.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dunn v. State, 286 Ga. 238, 242 (2) ( 686 SE2d 772 ) (2009).

2012If the person asserting the violation cannot make the foregoing showing, there is no need to continue with an equal protection analysis.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dunn v. State, 286 Ga. 238, 242 (2) ( 686 SE2d 772 ) (2009).

22
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecumgreen
ca8 · 1997 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025Jan. 3, 2011) (noting that “the reasonable belief exception is well established,” and that “[a] number of courts have sustained invocation of the privilege even when the communications were not made with a member of the bar, if the client reasonably believed that it was communicating with an attorney”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F3d 910, 924 (8th Cir. 1997) (discussing approaches of other courts in applying the reasonable-belief standard where an attorney–client relationship did not exist, but where there were reasonable mistakes of fact by clients that the relationship did ex

2025Jan. 3, 2011) (noting that “the reasonable belief exception is well established,” and that “[a] number of courts have sustained invocation of the privilege even when the communications were not made with a member of the bar, if the client reasonably believed that it was communicating with an attorney”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F3d 910, 924 (8th Cir. 1997) (discussing approaches of other courts in applying the reasonable-belief standard where an attorney–client relationship did not exist, but where there were reasonable mistakes of fact by clients that the relationship did ex

11
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007And “[t]he [U. S. Supreme] Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of ‘physical or moral compulsion’ exerted on the person asserting the privilege.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U. S. 553, 562 (II) (103 SC 916, 74 LE2d 748) (1983).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Lamb v. Fulton-Dekalb Hospital Authority green
gactapp · 2009
2 sentences

2009Auth., 297 Ga. App. 529 ( 677 SE2d 328 ) (2009). 2 When a recovery for personal injury is sought from a third party by or on behalf of a person for whom any benefit provider has paid medical expenses or disability benefits, the person asserting the claim for recovery against the third party shall provide notice of the existence of the claim, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery... , to any benefit provider which the person asserting the claim has reason to believe has paid benefits relating to the injury for which the injured party seeks a recovery.

2009Auth., 297 Ga. App. 529 ( 677 SE2d 328 ) (2009). 2 When a recovery for personal injury is sought from a third party by or on behalf of a person for whom any benefit provider has paid medical expenses or disability benefits, the person asserting the claim for recovery against the third party shall provide notice of the existence of the claim, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery... , to any benefit provider which the person asserting the claim has reason to believe has paid benefits relating to the injury for which the injured party seeks a recovery.

12009–2009
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1976In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (92 SC 1965, 32 LE2d 627) (1972), a guest was refused service in the dining room and bar of a private club licensed by the state to sell liquor.

1976In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (92 SC 1965, 32 LE2d 627) (1972), a guest was refused service in the dining room and bar of a private club licensed by the state to sell liquor.

11976–1976

Where else courts name it

OH 94 (1966–2025) CO 28 (1970–2026) TX 28 (1931–2026) PA 24 (1957–2024) ID 14 (1975–2017) CA 14 (1951–2025) NY 11 (1890–2026) GA 10 (1976–2025) MI 9 (1955–2017) NJ 7 (1985–2020) IN 7 (1978–2025) WI 7 (1996–2025) IL 7 (1957–2014) MD 6 (1970–2004) KS 6 (1982–2022) MO 6 (1961–2023) WV 6 (1948–2011) NC 5 (2014–2022) UT 5 (1984–2014) MN 5 (1983–2025) AL 4 (1914–2014) AR 4 (1892–1994) AZ 4 (1921–2026) ME 4 (1982–2025) WA 4 (1974–2024) CT 4 (1992–2019) NE 3 (1927–2017) LA 3 (1983–2015) VA 3 (1992–2003) IA 3 (1986–2011) VT 2 (1914–2020) ND 2 (1911–2010) OR 2 (1974–1976) DC 2 (1987–2003) HI 2 (2001–2006) MA 2 (2003–2015) SD 2 (2005–2014) DE 2 (1970–2017) SC 2 (1984–2003) NV 2 (2017–2017) MT 2 (1994–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check