practice violation (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

practice violation in Georgia

10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2013 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Bland Farms, LLC v. Georgia Department of Agriculturegreen
ga · 2006 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Bland Farms v. Ga. Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Ga. 192, 194 ( 637 SE2d 37 ) (2006).

2013Bland Farms v. Ga. Dept. of Agriculture, 281 Ga. 192, 194 ( 637 SE2d 37 ) (2006).

22
Maxwell v. Bishopgreen
scotus · 1967 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970See Maxwell v. Bishop, 385 U. S. 650 (87 SC 768, 17 LE2d 671).

1970See Maxwell v. Bishop, 385 U. S. 650 (87 SC 768, 17 LE2d 671).” Cummings v. State, 226 Ga. 46, 51 , supra. Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Maxwell case to consider, inter alia, the single-verdict procedure ( 393 U. S. 997 ), that case has been remanded to the District Court to consider a belatedly-raised Witherspoon issue. 38 U. S. L.

22
Brand v. Brandgreen
ga · 1979 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997See Brand v. Brand, 244 Ga. 124 ( 259 SE2d 133 ) (1979) (“A rule nisi may be used by the trial court to give notice of a permanent child custody hearing notwithstanding the practice that a rule nisi is more often used to give notice of preliminary, temporary or other interlocutory hearings”).

1997See Brand v. Brand, 244 Ga. 124 ( 259 SE2d 133 ) (1979) (“A rule nisi may be used by the trial court to give notice of a permanent child custody hearing notwithstanding the practice that a rule nisi is more often used to give notice of preliminary, temporary or other interlocutory hearings”).

11
Holcomb v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

11
Cummings v. Stategreen
ga · 1970 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
1 sentence

1970See Maxwell v. Bishop, 385 U. S. 650 (87 SC 768, 17 LE2d 671).” Cummings v. State, 226 Ga. 46, 51 , supra. Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Maxwell case to consider, inter alia, the single-verdict procedure ( 393 U. S. 997 ), that case has been remanded to the District Court to consider a belatedly-raised Witherspoon issue. 38 U. S. L.

11
National Labor Relations Board v. Gissel Packing Co.green
scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
1 sentence

1970See Maxwell v. Bishop, 385 U. S. 650 (87 SC 768, 17 LE2d 671).” Cummings v. State, 226 Ga. 46, 51 , supra. Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Maxwell case to consider, inter alia, the single-verdict procedure ( 393 U. S. 997 ), that case has been remanded to the District Court to consider a belatedly-raised Witherspoon issue. 38 U. S. L.

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
National Furniture Co. v. Edwards neutral
ga · 1898
2 sentences

1912In National Furniture Co. v. Edwards, 105 Ga. 240 ( 31 S. E. 161 ), it is held that “the proper practice in a claim case, where the claimant fails to put in an appearance, would be either to dismiss the claim, or for the plaintiff to make out his case before he would be entitled to a verdict or judgment subjecting the property.” Under this decision, when the case was called for trial and the claimant was absent and unrepresented, the trial judge could either have granted a motion to dismiss the claim, or' have allowed the plaintiff to make out his case and take a verdict finding the property s

1912In National Furniture Co. v. Edwards, 105 Ga. 240 ( 31 S. E. 161 ), it is held that “the proper practice in a claim case, where the claimant fails to put in an appearance, would be either to dismiss the claim, or for the plaintiff to make out his case before he would be entitled to a verdict or judgment subjecting the property.” Under this decision, when the case was called for trial and the claimant was absent and unrepresented, the trial judge could either have granted a motion to dismiss the claim, or' have allowed the plaintiff to make out his case and take a verdict finding the property s

21912–1927
Thomas v. State green
ga · 1892
2 sentences

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

11982–1982
White v. State green
gactapp · 1975
2 sentences

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

1982Thomas v. State, 90 Ga. 437 ( 16 SE 94 ) (1892); Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 157 (4) ( 202 SE2d 529 ) (1973); White v. State, 137 Ga. App. 9 (1) ( 223 SE2d 24 ) (1975).

11982–1982
Blount v. State green
ga · 1958
2 sentences

1959While the State offered in rebuttal the affidavits of all of the jurors that no improper communication or conduct was had by or with them at any time while they were engaged in the trial of the case, an examination of the record on file in this court in Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 S. E. 2d 304 ), discloses that a like showing was made in that case with respect to a similar ground, and this court there held: “With reference to ground 14, complaining because the bailiff left the jury and went to bed in a separate room, we find that this practice was error.

1959While the State offered in rebuttal the affidavits of all of the jurors that no improper communication or conduct was had by or with them at any time while they were engaged in the trial of the case, an examination of the record on file in this court in Blount v. State, 214 Ga. 433 (4) ( 105 S. E. 2d 304 ), discloses that a like showing was made in that case with respect to a similar ground, and this court there held: “With reference to ground 14, complaining because the bailiff left the jury and went to bed in a separate room, we find that this practice was error.

11959–1959
Bank of Southwestern Georgia v. Empire Life Insurance green
gactapp · 1912
2 sentences

1927National Furniture Co. v. Edwards, 105 Ga. 240 ( 31 S. E. 161 ) ; Bank of Southwestern Georgia v. Empire Life Insurance Co., 10 Ga. App. 320 ( 73 S. E. 597 ). 6.

1927National Furniture Co. v. Edwards, 105 Ga. 240 ( 31 S. E. 161 ) ; Bank of Southwestern Georgia v. Empire Life Insurance Co., 10 Ga. App. 320 ( 73 S. E. 597 ). 6.

11927–1927
Cawthon v. State green
ga · 1904
1 sentence

1910Where, as in this case, the objection makes a direct question of the admissibility or inadmissibility of the testimony, and there is no question connecting it with other testimony or the like, the better practice is to rule directly on the question and not to admit it “for the present.” This case differs from Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 396 ( 46 S. E. 897 ), where the testimony objected to was to be connected with the testimony of another witness to be examined. 4.

11910–1910

Where else courts name it

NY 27 (1862–2026) CA 26 (1969–2024) TX 15 (1914–2015) WA 11 (1891–2016) MI 11 (1908–2018) MA 10 (1913–2015) GA 10 (1910–2013) IL 9 (1895–2005) OK 8 (1915–2012) MS 8 (1975–2005) NJ 8 (1911–2008) PA 7 (1906–2026) IN 7 (1872–2015) FL 7 (1929–1998) NE 7 (1895–2024) MD 6 (1974–2007) OH 6 (1941–2026) MO 6 (1871–2020) WI 6 (1986–2021) CO 6 (1880–2024) AL 5 (1902–2011) TN 5 (1878–2003) MN 5 (1927–2016) KS 5 (1890–2020) VT 5 (1933–2023) UT 5 (1992–2024) DC 5 (1984–2010) IA 5 (1870–1964) LA 3 (2006–2010) OR 3 (1946–2013) NM 2 (1924–1981) KY 2 (1935–1937) VA 2 (1887–1986) CT 2 (2001–2004) MT 2 (1979–1981) AZ 2 (1991–2020) AR 2 (1912–2007) DE 2 (1951–1965)

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