Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monroe v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Monroe v. State , 272 Ga. 201 , 204 (n. 4), 528 S.E.2d 504 (2000) ; Caldwell v. State , 260 Ga. 278 , 285 (1) (b), 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). 2018See Monroe v. State , 272 Ga. 201 , 204 (n. 4), 528 S.E.2d 504 (2000) ; Caldwell v. State , 260 Ga. 278 , 285 (1) (b), 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
Caldwell v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Monroe v. State , 272 Ga. 201 , 204 (n. 4), 528 S.E.2d 504 (2000) ; Caldwell v. State , 260 Ga. 278 , 285 (1) (b), 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). 2018See Monroe v. State , 272 Ga. 201 , 204 (n. 4), 528 S.E.2d 504 (2000) ; Caldwell v. State , 260 Ga. 278 , 285 (1) (b), 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
Lattarulo v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Lattarulo, 261 Ga. at 126 (3).4 Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2004This Court has held “that the HGN test is an accepted, common procedure that has reached a state of verifiable certainty in the scientific community and is admissible as a basis upon which an officer can determine that a driver was impaired by alcohol.” Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 38 (1) ( 476 SE2d 803 ) (1996). 2004This Court has held “that the HGN test is an accepted, common procedure that has reached a state of verifiable certainty in the scientific community and is admissible as a basis upon which an officer can determine that a driver was impaired by alcohol.” Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 38 (1) ( 476 SE2d 803 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Noles v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. 1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. 1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. 1990See Noles v. State, 164 Ga. App. 191, 193 (2) ( 296 SE2d 768 ) (1982); Graham v. State, 154 Ga. App. 198, 199 ( 267 SE2d 842 ) (1980); cf. Thompson v. State, 175 Ga. App. 645, 649 (4) ( 334 SE2d 312 ) (1985). *437 Decided April 13, 1990 Rehearing denied April 24, 1990 Virgil L. | 1 | 1 |
Shaw v. Stategreen2 sentences1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w 1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. State
green
2 sentences2017In so doing, we remind the court of the preference that a trial court's findings with regard to the administration and waiver of Miranda rights take the form prescribed in Berry v. State , 254 Ga. 101 , 104-105 (1), n. 6, 326 S.E.2d 748 (1985). 2017In so doing, we remind the court of the preference that a trial court's findings with regard to the administration and waiver of Miranda rights take the form prescribed in Berry v. State , 254 Ga. 101 , 104-105 (1), n. 6, 326 S.E.2d 748 (1985). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1994NOTES [1] The Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the [a]ssistance of [c]ounsel for his defense." [2] It is noted that there is no mention in that opinion of a stipulation for admissibility having been entered into as a precursor to the administration of the test, nor is there any reference to State v. Chambers, 240 Ga. 76 ( 239 SE2d 324 ) (1977). 1994NOTES [1] The Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the [a]ssistance of [c]ounsel for his defense." [2] It is noted that there is no mention in that opinion of a stipulation for admissibility having been entered into as a precursor to the administration of the test, nor is there any reference to State v. Chambers, 240 Ga. 76 ( 239 SE2d 324 ) (1977). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Carson v. State
green
2 sentences1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w 1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Davis v. State
neutral
2 sentences1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w 1923As formerly, however, ‘ it is in a great degree discretionary with the presiding judge whether he will allow some’ of the witnesses to remain in the court-room to assist in the conduct of the case, when he is requested so to do by one of the parties.” While it is thus well settled that, even under the broadened and positive rule of the statute, there is nothing to prevent the presiding judge in the administration of the rule from exercising a discretion in permitting some of the witnesses put under it to remain within the hearing of the court (Carson v. State, 80 Ga. 170 , 5 S. E. 295 ), and w | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.