9 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pfeiffer v. Georgia Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2019Extremity Healthcare v. Access To Care America, 1 “Special circumstances could include a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or an error that works manifest injustice.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pfeiffer, 275 Ga. at 829 (2), n.10. 3 339 Ga. App. 246, 258 (3) ( 793 SE2d 529 (2016). 2011Motors Corp., 267 Ga. at 340 , 478 S.E.2d 123 , that reversal did not undermine the validity of this analysis of strict liability law in Georgia. [2] The Supreme Court noted that "[s]pecial circumstances could include `a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or (an) error that works manifest injustice.' See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)." Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2), n. 10, 573 S.E.2d 389 (2002). [3] The Georgia standard is more specific, in the s | 2 | 2 |
Campbell v. Goodegreen2 sentences2015See Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 126-127 (3) ( 549 SE2d 341 ) (2001); Campbell v. Goode, 304 Ga. App. 47, 50 ( 695 SE2d 44 ) (2010) (claim against city police officer in his official capacity is, in reality, a suit against the city and subject to a claim of sovereign immunity). 2015See Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 126-127 (3) ( 549 SE2d 341 ) (2001); Campbell v. Goode, 304 Ga. App. 47, 50 ( 695 SE2d 44 ) (2010) (claim against city police officer in his official capacity is, in reality, a suit against the city and subject to a claim of sovereign immunity). | 2 | 2 |
Cameron v. Langgreen2 sentences2015See Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 126-127 (3) ( 549 SE2d 341 ) (2001); Campbell v. Goode, 304 Ga. App. 47, 50 ( 695 SE2d 44 ) (2010) (claim against city police officer in his official capacity is, in reality, a suit against the city and subject to a claim of sovereign immunity). 2015See Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122, 126-127 (3) ( 549 SE2d 341 ) (2001); Campbell v. Goode, 304 Ga. App. 47, 50 ( 695 SE2d 44 ) (2010) (claim against city police officer in his official capacity is, in reality, a suit against the city and subject to a claim of sovereign immunity). | 2 | 2 |
Seay v. Clevelandgreen2 sentences2013It never asserted any claim of waiver under OCGA § 50-21-1 (a) of the claim of sovereign immunity until it filed its brief in this court. 2 The posture of this case therefore is directly controlled by Seay v. Cleveland, 270 Ga. 64, 66 (2) ( 508 SE2d 159 ) (1998). 2013It never asserted any claim of waiver under OCGA § 50-21-1 (a) of the claim of sovereign immunity until it filed its brief in this court. 2 The posture of this case therefore is directly controlled by Seay v. Cleveland, 270 Ga. 64, 66 (2) ( 508 SE2d 159 ) (1998). | 2 | 2 |
Extremity Healthcare, Inc. v. Access to Care America, LLCgreen2 sentences2019Extremity Healthcare v. Access To Care America, 1 “Special circumstances could include a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or an error that works manifest injustice.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pfeiffer, 275 Ga. at 829 (2), n.10. 3 339 Ga. App. 246, 258 (3) ( 793 SE2d 529 (2016). 2019Extremity Healthcare v. Access To Care America, 1 “Special circumstances could include a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or an error that works manifest injustice.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pfeiffer, 275 Ga. at 829 (2), n.10. 3 339 Ga. App. 246, 258 (3) ( 793 SE2d 529 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Gish v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2015Although we attempted to explain this confusion in Gish, 302 Ga. App. at 863-864 , our efforts obviously fell short since both plaintiffs and trial courts, such as those in this case, continue to rely on this conflated analysis even when faced solely with a claim of sovereign immunity under subsection (e) of Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. 2015Although we attempted to explain this confusion in Gish, 302 Ga. App. at 863-864 (4), our efforts obviously fell short since both plaintiffs and trial courts, such as those in this case, continue to rely on this conflated analysis even when faced solely with a claim of sovereign immunity under subsection (e) of Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. | 1 | 1 |
Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.green2 sentences2011Motors Corp., 267 Ga. at 340 , 478 S.E.2d 123 , that reversal did not undermine the validity of this analysis of strict liability law in Georgia. [2] The Supreme Court noted that "[s]pecial circumstances could include `a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or (an) error that works manifest injustice.' See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)." Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2), n. 10, 573 S.E.2d 389 (2002). [3] The Georgia standard is more specific, in the s 2011Motors Corp., 267 Ga. at 340 , 478 S.E.2d 123 , that reversal did not undermine the validity of this analysis of strict liability law in Georgia. [2] The Supreme Court noted that "[s]pecial circumstances could include `a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or (an) error that works manifest injustice.' See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)." Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2), n. 10, 573 S.E.2d 389 (2002). [3] The Georgia standard is more specific, in the s | 1 | 1 |
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authoritygreen1 sentence2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 1 |
Minnehoma Financial Co. v. Pauligreen1 sentence2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 1 |
Hobelman Motors, Inc. v. Allredgreen1 sentence2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Ryalsgreen1 sentence2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
FINDLEY v. CITY OF ATLANTA Et Al.
green
1 sentence2019Further, it is well-established that “this Court is for the correction of errors of law, and when the trial court has not ruled on an issue, we will not address it.” Findley v. City of Atlanta, 345 Ga. App. 649 , 652 (2) ( 814 SE2d 781 ) (2018); Stanley v. Govt. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Alverson v. Employees' Retirement System
green
2 sentences2013In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court holding that an action on a sheriff’s bond under OCGA § 15-6-5 was “an action ex contractu as to which sovereign immunity is 2 The sole decision cited by the District on appeal for its contention that immunity is waived under OCGA § 51-21-1 (a) is Alverson v Employees’ Retirement Sys., 272 Ga. App. 389 ( 613 SE2d 119 ) (2005). 2013In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court holding that an action on a sheriff’s bond under OCGA § 15-6-5 was “an action ex contractu as to which sovereign immunity is 2 The sole decision cited by the District on appeal for its contention that immunity is waived under OCGA § 51-21-1 (a) is Alverson v Employees’ Retirement Sys., 272 Ga. App. 389 ( 613 SE2d 119 ) (2005). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Alexander v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Motors Corp., 267 Ga. at 340 , 478 S.E.2d 123 , that reversal did not undermine the validity of this analysis of strict liability law in Georgia. [2] The Supreme Court noted that "[s]pecial circumstances could include `a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or (an) error that works manifest injustice.' See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)." Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2), n. 10, 573 S.E.2d 389 (2002). [3] The Georgia standard is more specific, in the s 2011Motors Corp., 267 Ga. at 340 , 478 S.E.2d 123 , that reversal did not undermine the validity of this analysis of strict liability law in Georgia. [2] The Supreme Court noted that "[s]pecial circumstances could include `a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or (an) error that works manifest injustice.' See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.)." Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2), n. 10, 573 S.E.2d 389 (2002). [3] The Georgia standard is more specific, in the s | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Johnson v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that 2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wfse v. Ofm
green
2 sentences2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that 2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama v. Weitz
green
1 sentence2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dental One Asssociates, Inc. v. JKR Realty Associates, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that 2002Co., 250 Ga. 83, 84 , 295 S.E.2d 841 (1982) (discussing inherent injustice if party appealing denial of motion for directed verdict is permitted to assert on appeal an issue not raised in motion). [10] Special circumstances could include "a jurisdictional challenge, a claim of sovereign immunity, a serious issue of public policy, a change in the law, or [an] error that works manifest injustice." See 19 Moore's Federal Practice, sec 205.05[2] at 205-58 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). [11] Whether a party should file a transcript or a stipulation under OCGA § 5-6-41(i) depends entirely on whether that | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Scroggins v. Edmondson
green
2 sentences1997The doctrine was adopted for civil cases in Georgia in Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430 (1), 297 S.E.2d 469 (1982). 1997The doctrine was adopted for civil cases in Georgia in Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430 (1), 297 S.E.2d 469 (1982). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Mitchell v. Forsyth
green
2 sentences1997A trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment on a claim of sovereign immunity is appealable under Cohen "to the extent that it turns on an issue of law." Mitchell, supra, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. at 2817 . 1997A trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment on a claim of sovereign immunity is appealable under Cohen "to the extent that it turns on an issue of law." Mitchell, supra, 472 U.S. at 530 , 105 S.Ct. at 2817 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.