9 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Boardgreen2 sentences2021Accordingly, the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity applies, and the trial court erred in denying [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss.” (punctuation & citations omitted)). 21 See note 14 & accompanying text. 22 See Youngblood, 273 Ga. at 717 (3) (“Because the act causing the underlying loss in this case, the beating . . . , constitutes a battery, the exception in OCGA § 50- 21-24 (7) to the waiver of sovereign immunity applies and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment . . . on [the] negligence claims.”). 12 State was entitled to sovereign immunity [under the assau 2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce | 3 | 3 |
Georgia Military College v. Santamorenagreen2 sentences2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li 2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li | 2 | 3 |
Department of Human Resources v. Hutchinsongreen2 sentences2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce 2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce | 1 | 4 |
Deal v. Colemangreen2 sentences2021However, plaintiff’s reliance on these cases is misplaced, as those cases are based upon language in the FTCA that differs from the GTCA.”). 29 See OCGA § 50-21-22 (3); OCGA § 50-21-24 (7); see also Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 173 (1) (a) ( 751 SE2d 337 ) (2013) (“[I]f the statutory text is ‘clear and 15 say, we decline the Beasleys’ invitation to interpret the word “losses” in the GTCA assault-and-battery exception as sharing a meaning with “claim”—as used in the FTCA assault-and-battery exception30—when the GTCA explicitly provides definitions for these two words.31 To do otherwise is to e 2021However, plaintiff’s reliance on these cases is misplaced, as those cases are based upon language in the FTCA that differs from the GTCA.”). 29 See OCGA § 50-21-22 (3); OCGA § 50-21-24 (7); see also Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170, 173 (1) (a) ( 751 SE2d 337 ) (2013) (“[I]f the statutory text is ‘clear and 15 say, we decline the Beasleys’ invitation to interpret the word “losses” in the GTCA assault-and-battery exception as sharing a meaning with “claim”—as used in the FTCA assault-and-battery exception30—when the GTCA explicitly provides definitions for these two words.31 To do otherwise is to e | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li 2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li | 1 | 1 |
Southerland v. Georgia Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce 2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce | 1 | 1 |
Oconee Community Service Board v. Holseygreen2 sentences2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce 2021Indeed, in Youngblood v. Gwinnett Rockdale Newton Community Service Board,36 our Supreme Court relied upon both Hutchinson and Santamorena to explain that—unlike other subsections within the GTCA’s 33 217 Ga. App. 70 ( 456 SE2d 642 ) (1995). 34 237 Ga. App. 58 ( 514 SE2d 82 ) (1999). 35 See id. at 61 (1) (a) (explaining that “under the GTCA, we do not look at the duty allegedly breached by the government, but focus on the act causing the plaintiff’s loss” and citing to Hutchinson in support). 36 273 Ga. 715 ( 545 SE2d 875 ) (2001). 18 exceptions provision—the so-called assault-and-battery exce | 1 | 1 |
Department of Human Resources v. Coleygreen2 sentences2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li 2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Department of Children & Youth Servicesgreen2 sentences2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li 2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li | 1 | 1 |
Georgia Department of Transportation v. Hellergreen2 sentences2021Finally, the Beasleys assert that the trial court’s application of the assault- and-battery exception within the GTCA “ignores established tort principles regarding 23 Heller, 285 Ga. at 266 (1). 2021Finally, the Beasleys assert that the trial court’s application of the assault- and-battery exception within the GTCA “ignores established tort principles regarding 23 Heller, 285 Ga. at 266 (1). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Transportation v. Montgomery Tank Lines, Inc.green2 sentences2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li 2021But as our Supreme Court has aptly noted, the GTCA was patterned after the FTCA “in most respects”;26 and “in most 26 Edwards v. Dep’t of Children & Youth Srvcs., 271 Ga. 890, 891 ( 525 SE2d 83 ) (2000); see Coley, 247 Ga. App. at 395 (2) (explaining that the premise that “the GTCA is simply a ‘clone’ of the FTCA” is “incorrect”). 14 respects” does not mean in all respects.27 Indeed, as we thoroughly explained in Coley, the assault-and-battery exception within the GTCA is one such distinction.28 The language of the GTCA assault-and-battery exception is plain and unequivocal—the State has no li | 1 | 1 |
Dillard v. Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc.green2 sentences2021When the Supreme Court has addressed an issue in clear terms, this [C]ourt is not at liberty to decline to follow the established rule of law.” (punctuation omitted)); Dillard v. Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, 258 Ga. App. 507, 511 (3) ( 574 SE2d 544 ) (2002) (“It is axiomatic that this Court is bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court.”). 39 The Beasleys also argue in their brief that the General Assembly never “intended” for the assault-and-battery exception to apply to non-State actors because the FTCA assault-and-battery exception has been interpreted to only apply to State actors. 2021When the Supreme Court has addressed an issue in clear terms, this [C]ourt is not at liberty to decline to follow the established rule of law.” (punctuation omitted)); Dillard v. Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, 258 Ga. App. 507, 511 (3) ( 574 SE2d 544 ) (2002) (“It is axiomatic that this Court is bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court.”). 39 The Beasleys also argue in their brief that the General Assembly never “intended” for the assault-and-battery exception to apply to non-State actors because the FTCA assault-and-battery exception has been interpreted to only apply to State actors. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Standifergreen1 sentence2013See id. at 775 (1) (b) (plaintiff could not circumvent assault and battery exception by alleging that the attack of the victim resulted from the state being “negligent or deliberately indifferent in their hiring, instruction, supervision, control, and discipline” of its officers or employees). | 1 | 1 |
Han v. Hangreen2 sentences2011Compare Han v. Han, 295 Ga. App. 1, 3-4 (2) ( 670 SE2d 842 ) (2008) (transfer of payee’s interest in real property could not serve as consideration for note, where transfer occurred days before execution of note and payee had no interest in real property when note was executed; note was therefore unenforceable for lack of consideration). 4 Supra. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 760. 7 Id. at 761. 8 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 9 One reason for the existence and popularity of promissory notes is that collecting on them is quicker and easier than collecting on a claim for breach of contract. 10 West d 2011Compare Han v. Han, 295 Ga. App. 1, 3-4 (2) ( 670 SE2d 842 ) (2008) (transfer of payee’s interest in real property could not serve as consideration for note, where transfer occurred days before execution of note and payee had no interest in real property when note was executed; note was therefore unenforceable for lack of consideration). 4 Supra. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 760. 7 Id. at 761. 8 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 9 One reason for the existence and popularity of promissory notes is that collecting on them is quicker and easier than collecting on a claim for breach of contract. 10 West d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tiraboschigreen2 sentences2000"The [Georgia] legislature is presumed to know the condition of the law and to enact statutes with reference to it." State v. Tiraboschi, 269 Ga. 812, 814 , 504 S.E.2d 689 (1998). 2000"The [Georgia] legislature is presumed to know the condition of the law and to enact statutes with reference to it." State v. Tiraboschi, 269 Ga. 812, 814 , 504 S.E.2d 689 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Augusta Factorygreen2 sentences1989"In the nature of things, fire is always attended with more or less danger, and is itself a warning to beware." Allen v. Augusta Factory, 82 Ga. 76, 79 ( 8 SE 68 ) (1888). 1989"In the nature of things, fire is always attended with more or less danger, and is itself a warning to beware." Allen v. Augusta Factory, 82 Ga. 76, 79 ( 8 SE 68 ) (1888). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Georgia Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1989See Martin v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 257 Ga. 300, 301-303 (2) ( 357 SE2d 569 ) (1987). 1989See Martin v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 257 Ga. 300, 301-303 (2) ( 357 SE2d 569 ) (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Newsome v. Cooper-Wiss, Inc.green2 sentences1989See Newsome v. Cooper-Wiss, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 670, 672 (1) ( 347 SE2d 619 ) (1986). 5. 1989See Newsome v. Cooper-Wiss, Inc., 179 Ga. App. 670, 672 (1) ( 347 SE2d 619 ) (1986). 5. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matjoulis v. Integon General Ins. Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Compare Han v. Han, 295 Ga. App. 1, 3-4 (2) ( 670 SE2d 842 ) (2008) (transfer of payee’s interest in real property could not serve as consideration for note, where transfer occurred days before execution of note and payee had no interest in real property when note was executed; note was therefore unenforceable for lack of consideration). 4 Supra. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 760. 7 Id. at 761. 8 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 9 One reason for the existence and popularity of promissory notes is that collecting on them is quicker and easier than collecting on a claim for breach of contract. 10 West d 2011Compare Han v. Han, 295 Ga. App. 1, 3-4 (2) ( 670 SE2d 842 ) (2008) (transfer of payee’s interest in real property could not serve as consideration for note, where transfer occurred days before execution of note and payee had no interest in real property when note was executed; note was therefore unenforceable for lack of consideration). 4 Supra. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 760. 7 Id. at 761. 8 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. 9 One reason for the existence and popularity of promissory notes is that collecting on them is quicker and easier than collecting on a claim for breach of contract. 10 West d | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Burke v. State
green
2 sentences2000As discussed above, the dissent's joint proximate cause analysis is incorrect, since the plaintiff's entire loss results from an assault or battery even if there are additional proximate causes, and the state is granted immunity for the "loss," not the "claim." However, the dissent cannot hang its hat on the fact that there may be multiple proximate causes for a loss, and then ignore that fact when it is inconvenient. [16] Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.), p. 1084. [17] (Punctuation omitted.) Burke v. State, 208 Ga.App. 446 -447(1), 430 S.E.2d 816 (1993). [18] See Hendricks, supra. [19] Ga. Co 2000As discussed above, the dissent's joint proximate cause analysis is incorrect, since the plaintiff's entire loss results from an assault or battery even if there are additional proximate causes, and the state is granted immunity for the "loss," not the "claim." However, the dissent cannot hang its hat on the fact that there may be multiple proximate causes for a loss, and then ignore that fact when it is inconvenient. [16] Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.), p. 1084. [17] (Punctuation omitted.) Burke v. State, 208 Ga.App. 446 -447(1), 430 S.E.2d 816 (1993). [18] See Hendricks, supra. [19] Ga. Co | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Muniz
green
2 sentences2000Muniz, 374 U.S. at 163 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 . 2000Muniz, 374 U.S. at 163 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Sheridan v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 , 108 S.Ct. 2449 , 101 L.Ed.2d 352 (1988). [23] In Sheridan , an obviously intoxicated off-duty serviceman was seen by three naval corpsmen carrying a rifle. 2000Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 , 108 S.Ct. 2449 , 101 L.Ed.2d 352 (1988). [23] In Sheridan , an obviously intoxicated off-duty serviceman was seen by three naval corpsmen carrying a rifle. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gordon v. Gillespie
green
1 sentence1995Morris, supra; Gordon, supra. The only evidence relied upon by Wilfong as reflecting laches or unexcusable delay is the two years and seven months which elapsed between the original and recast complaints. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.