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 2011–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Scottgreen2 sentences2019See Mathis v. State , 291 Ga. 268 , 272 (5), 728 S.E.2d 661 (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State , 278 Ga. 479 , 480 (2), 604 S.E.2d 144 (2004) (accord). 5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry's motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. 2019See Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268, 272 (5) ( 728 SE2d 661 ) (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State, 278 Ga. 479, 480 (2) ( 604 SE2d 144 ) (2004) (accord).5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry’s motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. | 2 | 2 |
Mathis v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Mathis v. State , 291 Ga. 268 , 272 (5), 728 S.E.2d 661 (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State , 278 Ga. 479 , 480 (2), 604 S.E.2d 144 (2004) (accord). 5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry's motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. 2019See Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268, 272 (5) ( 728 SE2d 661 ) (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State, 278 Ga. 479, 480 (2) ( 604 SE2d 144 ) (2004) (accord).5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry’s motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. | 2 | 2 |
BLAZI v. Richgreen2 sentences2014Blazi v. Rich, 306 Ga. App. 529, 531 (2) ( 702 SE2d 768 ) (2010) (citation omitted). 2014Blazi v. Rich, 306 Ga. App. 529, 531 (2) ( 702 SE2d 768 ) (2010) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Wilkie v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Wilkie, supra, 290 Ga. at 450-451 (examining alleged denial of constitutional right to speedy trial under Barker-Doggett test beginning from arrest where defendant arrested soon after crime, released on bond, and indicted four years later); compare Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 411-412 (1) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008) (analysis of Fifth Amendment right to due process where three-year delay between crime and indictment). 2012See Wilkie, supra, 290 Ga. at 450-451 (examining alleged denial of constitutional right to speedy trial under Barker-Doggett test beginning from arrest where defendant arrested soon after crime, released on bond, and indicted four years later); compare Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 410-411 (1) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008) (analysis of Fifth Amendment right to due process where three-year delay between crime and indictment). | 2 | 2 |
Bunn v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Wilkie, supra, 290 Ga. at 450-451 (examining alleged denial of constitutional right to speedy trial under Barker-Doggett test beginning from arrest where defendant arrested soon after crime, released on bond, and indicted four years later); compare Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 411-412 (1) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008) (analysis of Fifth Amendment right to due process where three-year delay between crime and indictment). 2012See Wilkie, supra, 290 Ga. at 450-451 (examining alleged denial of constitutional right to speedy trial under Barker-Doggett test beginning from arrest where defendant arrested soon after crime, released on bond, and indicted four years later); compare Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 411-412 (1) ( 667 SE2d 605 ) (2008) (analysis of Fifth Amendment right to due process where three-year delay between crime and indictment). | 2 | 2 |
Hunt v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Mathis v. State , 291 Ga. 268 , 272 (5), 728 S.E.2d 661 (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State , 278 Ga. 479 , 480 (2), 604 S.E.2d 144 (2004) (accord). 5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry's motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. 2019See Mathis v. State , 291 Ga. 268 , 272 (5), 728 S.E.2d 661 (2012) (statutory obligation to produce witness statements does not apply to oral statements); Hunt v. State , 278 Ga. 479 , 480 (2), 604 S.E.2d 144 (2004) (accord). 5 Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Curry's motion for a mistrial on this basis. 3. | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2012“The grant or denial of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless it was manifestly abused. [Cit.]” Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343, 345 (4) ( 676 SE2d 215 ) (2009). 2012“The grant or denial of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be disturbed on appeal unless it was manifestly abused. [Cit.]” Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343, 345 (4) ( 676 SE2d 215 ) (2009). | 1 | 1 |
Herrera v. Stategreen2 sentences2011"On appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, the evidence is to be construed to uphold the findings of the trial court unless they are determined to be clearly erroneous." (Citation omitted.) Herrera v. State, 288 Ga. 231, 233 (2), 702 S.E.2d 854 (2010). 2011"On appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, the evidence is to be construed to uphold the findings of the trial court unless they are determined to be clearly erroneous." (Citation omitted.) Herrera v. State, 288 Ga. 231, 233 (2), 702 S.E.2d 854 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Beck v. Stategreen2 sentences2011But "Georgia does not recognize the good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule because our legislature has not provided one." Beck, 283 Ga. at 353 (1), 658 S.E.2d 577 . 2011But "Georgia does not recognize the good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule because our legislature has not provided one." Beck, 283 Ga. at 353 (1), 658 S.E.2d 577 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Porter
green
2 sentences2012As explained in Porter, supra, [a] trial court exercises substantial discretion in applying the Barker[-Doggett\ balancing test, and its ultimate judgment is reviewed on appeal only for abuse of that discretion. 2012As explained in Porter, supra, A trial court exercises substantial discretion in applying the Barker[- Doggett] balancing test, and its ultimate judgment is reviewed on appeal only for abuse of that discretion. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2012While it appears that the trial court addressed Curry’s complaints concerning pre-indictment delay in its ruling granting Curry’s motion to dismiss for the State’s delay in prosecution, it did so improperly as we have held in Case No. A12A0944. 3 We therefore remand this case and direct the trial court to consider both Curry’s claim for pre-indictment delay and his claim for delay in prosecution under the appropriate standard set forth in Barker, supra, and Doggett, supra, for an alleged violation of the federal and state constitutional right to a speedy trial. 2012While it appears that the trial court addressed Curry’s complaints concerning pre-indictment delay in its ruling granting Curry’s motion to dismiss for the State’s delay in prosecution, it did so improperly as we have held in Case No. A12A0944. 3 We therefore remand this case and direct the trial court to consider both Curry’s claim for pre-indictment delay and his claim for delay in prosecution under the appropriate standard set forth in Barker, supra, and Doggett, supra, for an alleged violation of the federal and state constitutional right to a speedy trial. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
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.