8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
von Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See OCGA § 17-10-7 (b.1) (2012); Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 4-4. von Thomas v. State , 293 Ga. 569 , 569-570 (1), n. 1, 748 S.E.2d 446 (2013). 2019See OCGA § 17-10-7 (b.1) (2012); Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 4-4. von Thomas v. State , 293 Ga. 569 , 569-570 (1), n. 1, 748 S.E.2d 446 (2013). | 1 | 2 |
Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLCgreen2 sentences2017See Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLC, 306 Ga. App. 160, 162 ( 701 SE2d 599 ) (2010) (certificate of immediate review of order transferring case from one court to another was invalid because it was signed by judge of transferee court). 5 The indictment alleges that Hourin conspired to commit the offense of unauthorized distribution and dispensation of a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-42. 2017See Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLC, 306 Ga. App. 160, 162 ( 701 SE2d 599 ) (2010) (certificate of immediate review of order transferring case from one court to another was invalid because it was signed by judge of transferee court). 5 The indictment alleges that Hourin conspired to commit the offense of unauthorized distribution and dispensation of a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-42. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mulkeygreen2 sentences2009Under the majority's interpretation of OCGA § 16-13-41(h), the physician "issued" the prescription document to the nurse and because the document so issued was signed in blank, the physician violated OCGA § 16-13-42(a)(1) by unlawfully "distribut[ing] or dispens[ing] a controlled substance in violation of Code Section 16-13-41." The majority justifies its interpretation of "issue" in OCGA § 16-13-41(h) by referencing the usual statutory interpretation language but it omits the most pertinent rule of construction, namely, our duty "to consider the results and consequences of any proposed constr 2009Under the majority's interpretation of OCGA § 16-13-41(h), the physician "issued" the prescription document to the nurse and because the document so issued was signed in blank, the physician violated OCGA § 16-13-42(a)(1) by unlawfully "distribut[ing] or dispens[ing] a controlled substance in violation of Code Section 16-13-41." The majority justifies its interpretation of "issue" in OCGA § 16-13-41(h) by referencing the usual statutory interpretation language but it omits the most pertinent rule of construction, namely, our duty "to consider the results and consequences of any proposed constr | 1 | 1 |
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences2007However, under the negotiated plea agreement, Thomas did not plead guilty to these specific charges. 7 Although Thomas’s appellate brief initially contends that the trial court’s denial of his plea of former jeopardy and autrefois convict also subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the arguments in his brief focus exclusively on the claim that the trial court’s order violated OCGA §§ 16-1-7 (b) and 16-1-8 (b). 8 City of Baldwin v. Barrett, 265 Ga. 489, 490 ( 458 SE2d 619 ) (1995). 9 Glover v. State, 258 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 574 SE2d 565 ) ( 2007However, under the negotiated plea agreement, Thomas did not plead guilty to these specific charges. 7 Although Thomas’s appellate brief initially contends that the trial court’s denial of his plea of former jeopardy and autrefois convict also subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the arguments in his brief focus exclusively on the claim that the trial court’s order violated OCGA §§ 16-1-7 (b) and 16-1-8 (b). 8 City of Baldwin v. Barrett, 265 Ga. 489, 490 ( 458 SE2d 619 ) (1995). 9 Glover v. State, 258 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 574 SE2d 565 ) ( | 1 | 1 |
City of Baldwin v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2007However, under the negotiated plea agreement, Thomas did not plead guilty to these specific charges. 7 Although Thomas’s appellate brief initially contends that the trial court’s denial of his plea of former jeopardy and autrefois convict also subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the arguments in his brief focus exclusively on the claim that the trial court’s order violated OCGA §§ 16-1-7 (b) and 16-1-8 (b). 8 City of Baldwin v. Barrett, 265 Ga. 489, 490 ( 458 SE2d 619 ) (1995). 9 Glover v. State, 258 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 574 SE2d 565 ) ( 2007However, under the negotiated plea agreement, Thomas did not plead guilty to these specific charges. 7 Although Thomas’s appellate brief initially contends that the trial court’s denial of his plea of former jeopardy and autrefois convict also subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the arguments in his brief focus exclusively on the claim that the trial court’s order violated OCGA §§ 16-1-7 (b) and 16-1-8 (b). 8 City of Baldwin v. Barrett, 265 Ga. 489, 490 ( 458 SE2d 619 ) (1995). 9 Glover v. State, 258 Ga. App. 527, 529 ( 574 SE2d 565 ) ( | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Stategreen2 sentences1989The State is not obligated “to anticipate a possible defense based upon the various statutory exceptions to the Act or to present evidence of the nonapplicability or nonexistence of each potential exemption.” Nix v. State, 135 Ga. App. 672, 673 ( 219 SE2d 6 ) (1975). 1989The State is not obligated “to anticipate a possible defense based upon the various statutory exceptions to the Act or to present evidence of the nonapplicability or nonexistence of each potential exemption.” Nix v. State, 135 Ga. App. 672, 673 ( 219 SE2d 6 ) (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duvall v. State
green
2 sentences2023Nevertheless, Tate-Jesurum argues, and the dissent agrees, that in Duvall v. State, 289 Ga. 540 ( 712 SE2d 850 ) (2011), the Supreme Court abrogated, within the context of an indictment alleging possession of a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 (a), both the legislative directive of OCGA § 17-7-54 (a) and the well-established pleading rules upon which courts and prosecutors of this State alike have relied upon for decades. 2023Nevertheless, Tate-Jesurum argues, and the dissent agrees, that in Duvall v. State, 289 Ga. 540 ( 712 SE2d 850 ) (2011), the Supreme Court abrogated, within the context of an indictment alleging possession of a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 (a), both the legislative directive of OCGA § 17-7-54 (a) and the well-established pleading rules upon which courts and prosecutors of this State alike have relied upon for decades. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sprinkles v. State
green
2 sentences2010NOTES [1] More specifically, she was charged with one count of unlawfully attempting to purchase a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-4-1, one count of unlawfully using a communications facility in violation of OCGA § 16-13-32.3, and two counts of unlawfully possessing a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30. [2] On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence "most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court." Sprinkles v. State, 227 Ga.App. 112 (1), 488 S.E.2d 492 (1997). [3] The special concurrence argues that we sh 2010NOTES [1] More specifically, she was charged with one count of unlawfully attempting to purchase a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-4-1, one count of unlawfully using a communications facility in violation of OCGA § 16-13-32.3, and two counts of unlawfully possessing a controlled substance in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30. [2] On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence "most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court." Sprinkles v. State, 227 Ga.App. 112 (1), 488 S.E.2d 492 (1997). [3] The special concurrence argues that we sh | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.