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 2000–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Britt v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468-469 (I) ( 98 SCt 2454 , 57 LE2d 351) (1978) (denial of class certification does not constitute a collateral order because such an order is subject to revision in the district court, involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues of the plaintiff’s case, and is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff or intervening class members); Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 653 SE2d 713 ) (2007) (order granting a motion to compel documents related to the funding of Georg 2013See also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468-469 (I) ( 98 SCt 2454 , 57 LE2d 351) (1978) (denial of class certification does not constitute a collateral order because such an order is subject to revision in the district court, involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues of the plaintiff’s case, and is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff or intervening class members); Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 653 SE2d 713 ) (2007) (order granting a motion to compel documents related to the funding of Georg | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for 2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for | 1 | 2 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2021See id. 2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
Houston v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for 2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for | 1 | 1 |
Raines v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for 2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for 2019See, e.g., Ford v. State, 254 Ga. App. 413, 414 ( 563 SE2d 170 ) (2002) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel during arraignment, but his application was denied.); Raines v. State, 242 Ga. App. 727, 728 ( 531 SE2d 158 ) (2000) (The county’s indigent defense office determined that the defendant was not indigent, and the trial court adopted that finding.); Martin v. State, 240 Ga. App. 246, 247 ( 523 SE2d 84 ) (1999) (The defendant applied for appointed counsel, but his application was denied.); Houston v. State, 205 Ga. App. 703, 703-704 ( 423 SE2d 431 ) (1992) (The defendant applied for | 1 | 1 |
Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesayred2 sentences2013See also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468-469 (I) ( 98 SCt 2454 , 57 LE2d 351) (1978) (denial of class certification does not constitute a collateral order because such an order is subject to revision in the district court, involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues of the plaintiff’s case, and is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff or intervening class members); Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 653 SE2d 713 ) (2007) (order granting a motion to compel documents related to the funding of Georg 2013See also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468-469 (I) ( 98 SCt 2454 , 57 LE2d 351) (1978) (denial of class certification does not constitute a collateral order because such an order is subject to revision in the district court, involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues of the plaintiff’s case, and is subject to effective review after final judgment at the behest of the named plaintiff or intervening class members); Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 748 (1) ( 653 SE2d 713 ) (2007) (order granting a motion to compel documents related to the funding of Georg | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Simmons v. State, 276 Ga. at 526 . | 1 | 1 |
Spradlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2006“Any failure of the indigent defense system to represent its clients is directly or indirectly the responsibility of the State and the trial court to oversee the functioning of the criminal justice system.” Spradlin v. State, supra, 262 Ga. App. at 901 (3) (holding State responsible for delay where indigent’s appellate attorney failed to pursue post-trial remedies; district attorney and trial court knew appellant was in state prison; and motion for new trial had not been resolved). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2021A Colorado appellate decision, People v. Thompson, 413 P3d 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017), does no better. 2021A Colorado appellate decision, People v. Thompson, 413 P3d 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017), does no better. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Earl
green
2 sentences2021This makes Earl’s bases for concluding that the federal constitution does not forbid denying public defense resources to an indigent defendant who opts out of public representation — that the right to choice of counsel is circumscribed, and an indigent defense is entitled to only the tools for an adequate defense, see 345 P3d at 1158-59 — particularly unsatisfying. 2021This makes Earl’s bases for concluding that the federal Constitution does not forbid denying public defense resources to an indigent defendant who opts out of public representation — that the right to choice of counsel is circumscribed, and an indigent defense is entitled to only the tools for an adequate defense, see 345 P3d at 39 1158-1159 — particularly unsatisfying. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Ama
green
2 sentences2017Id. “[I]t is the trial court’s responsibility to make a determination of indigence based upon evidence and to establish a record of such finding.” Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). 2017Id. “[I]t is the trial court’s responsibility to make a determination of indigence based upon evidence and to establish a record of such finding.” Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.