8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 10013green2 sentences2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 ( 718 SE2d 14 ) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) 2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( | 2 | 2 |
MARTINEZ v. the STATE.green2 sentences2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( 2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Charles Marvin Watkinsgreen2 sentences2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 ( 718 SE2d 14 ) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) 2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( | 2 | 2 |
VARRIANO v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( 2022Compare Varriano v. State, 312 Ga. App. 266, 268-269 (718 SE2d 14) (2011) (reviewing the trial court’s determination of the appellant’s scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins, 760 F3d 1271, 1283 (1) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s finding that “unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant’s] computers [was given] was not clear error”), and United States v. Martel- Martines, 988 F2d 855, 858 (II) (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that the scope of a suspect’s consent to search is reviewed for clear error), with Martinez v. State, 347 Ga. App. 675, 683 (C) (ii) ( | 2 | 2 |
Austin v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2025See generally Austin, 294 Ga. at 774-775 (dismissal of action reversed where the factual evidence of a potential ministerial duty may exist but had not yet been developed). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Fleming v. Maddoxgreen2 sentences2023See Clay, 214 Ga. at 73-74; Fleming v. Maddox, 225 Ga. 737, 740-741 (171 SE2d 276) (1969). 2023See Clay, 214 Ga. at 73-74; Fleming v. Maddox, 225 Ga. 737, 740-741 (171 SE2d 276) (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Commissioners of Peace Officers Annuity & Benefit Fund v. Claygreen2 sentences2023See Clay, 214 Ga. at 73-74 ; Fleming v. Maddox, 225 Ga. 737, 740-741 ( 171 SE2d 276 ) (1969). 2023See Clay, 214 Ga. at 73-74; Fleming v. Maddox, 225 Ga. 737, 740-741 (171 SE2d 276) (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Withers v. Schroedergreen2 sentences2021See Withers, 304 Ga. at 397-98 (2) (judicial immunity is defined by the nature and function of the act at issue, not by the person to whom it attaches). 2021See Withers, 304 Ga. at 397-98 (2) (judicial immunity is defined by the nature and function of the act at issue, not by the person to whom it attaches). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bradleygreen1 sentence2018See Bradley, 644 F3d at 1271 (“[O]ur determination of whether the evidence is relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, or more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403, must turn on the facts of each specific case.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. State
red
2 sentences2018Id."[R]eviewing the reasonable scope of the search will largely be a fact-specific inquiry." Hawkins v. State , 290 Ga. 785 , 788, 723 S.E.2d 924 (2012). 2018Id."[R]eviewing the reasonable scope of the search will largely be a fact-specific inquiry." Hawkins v. State , 290 Ga. 785 , 788, 723 S.E.2d 924 (2012). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
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.