reason of the general rule (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

reason of the general rule in Georgia

10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1924–1998 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
Adams v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1989 · cited in 5 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1991–1998
2 sentences

1998Only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule may be admitted.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 16, 17 (2) ( 381 SE2d 69 ) (1989).

1998Only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule may be admitted.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 16, 17 (2) ( 381 SE2d 69 ) (1989).

55
Ohio v. Robertsred
scotus · 1980 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1993
2 sentences

1993Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that “there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.” ’ Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 65 (100 SC 2531, 65 LE2d 597) (1980).” Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606, 608-609 (7) ( 351 SE2d 448 ) (1987).

1987Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.’ ” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 65 (100 SC 2531, 65 LE2d 597) (1980).

22
Swain v. Citizens & Southern Bankgreen
ga · 1988 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1989–1992
2 sentences

1992See also Swain v. C & S Bank of Albany, 258 Ga. 547 ( 372 SE2d 423 ) (1988).” Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 16, 17 ( 381 SE2d 69 ).

1992See also Swain v. C & S Bank of Albany, 258 Ga. 547 ( 372 SE2d 423 ) (1988).” Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 16, 17 ( 381 SE2d 69 ).

22
Rosser v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rosser v. State, 211 Ga. App. 402, 404 ( 439 SE2d 72 ) (1993).

1994Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rosser v. State, 211 Ga. App. 402, 404 ( 439 SE2d 72 ) (1993).

11
Higgs v. Stategreen
ga · 1987 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that “there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.” ’ Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 65 (100 SC 2531, 65 LE2d 597) (1980).” Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606, 608-609 (7) ( 351 SE2d 448 ) (1987).

1993Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence, the Clause countenances only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that “there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule.” ’ Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, 65 (100 SC 2531, 65 LE2d 597) (1980).” Higgs v. State, 256 Ga. 606, 608-609 (7) ( 351 SE2d 448 ) (1987).

11
Glisson v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993
2 sentences

1993The threshold question, unavailability of the witness, is typically established “because of death or in cases where the witness may not be compelled to testify, as in the case of a wife who cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.” Glisson v. State, 188 Ga. App. 152, 154 (2) ( 372 SE2d 462 ) (1988).

1993The threshold question, unavailability of the witness, is typically established “because of death or in cases where the witness may not be compelled to testify, as in the case of a wife who cannot be compelled to testify against her husband.” Glisson v. State, 188 Ga. App. 152, 154 (2) ( 372 SE2d 462 ) (1988).

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
In the Interest of KTB green
gactapp · 1989
1 sentence

1991B., supra. “Only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that ‘there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule may be admitted.’ ” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 16, 17 ( 381 SE2d 69 ) (1989).

11991–1991
Martin v. Atkinson green
ga · 1849
1 sentence

1924The decision of this court in Martin v. Atkinson (supra) is not considered to be in conflict with .this view.

11924–1924

Statutes the citing opinions construe

GA § 24-3-1 (7)

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.

Where else courts name it

GA 10 (1924–1998) AL 8 (1989–2001) MD 8 (1972–2001) PA 5 (1985–1993) HI 5 (1923–2005) TX 5 (1986–2002) WA 5 (1975–2001) MS 4 (1986–1988) MA 4 (1982–1997) MI 4 (1974–2011) SD 4 (1984–1985) OR 3 (1982–2021) VA 3 (1918–2003) WI 3 (1981–1986) CA 3 (1987–2005) DC 3 (1981–1984) IN 2 (1896–1911) NC 2 (1984–2001) NY 2 (1882–1982) FL 2 (1988–2000) CO 2 (1888–1930) OK 2 (1986–1991) NJ 2 (1845–1845)

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