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 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whelchel v. Thomas Ford Tractor, Inc.green2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
Malloy v. Elmoregreen2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
U. S. Industries, Inc. v. Austingreen2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
Willard v. Wilburngreen2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
Henry v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. ATLANTA COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANYgreen2 sentences2016See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance went to the issue of special damages and was harmless because jury “determined the question of liability in favor of the defendant”); Austin, 197 Ga. App. at 75 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of and charge to jury regarding workers’ compensation benefits did not warrant the grant of a new trial because ‘the giving of 2016The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); OCGA § 24- 1-103 (b) (“Error shall not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected . . . .”). 32 See Henry, 219 Ga. App. at 80-81 (holding that defendant’s reference to HMO provider by name was harmless in light of verdict in favor of defendant on issue of liability); Willard, 203 Ga. App. at 394 (2) (holding that admission of evidence of plaintiff’s health insurance | 2 | 2 |
White v. Hammondgreen2 sentences1981“The Court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” CPA § 61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408, 410 ( 199 SE2d 809 ) (1973). 1981“The Court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” CPA § 61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); White v. Hammond, 129 Ga. App. 408, 410 ( 199 SE2d 809 ) (1973). | 2 | 2 |
Abedina Agic v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2019Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority , 334 Ga. App. 679 , 683 (2), 780 S.E.2d 79 (2015). 2019Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority , 334 Ga. App. 679 , 683 (2), 780 S.E.2d 79 (2015). | 1 | 2 |
Gwinnett County v. Sargentgreen1 sentence2019See Gwinnett County, 321 Ga. App. at 194 (1). 8 v. Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority, 334 Ga. App. 679, 683 (2) ( 780 SE2d 79 ) (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Anepohl v. Ferbergreen2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Pricegreen2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 1 |
Grissom v. Gleasongreen2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Emory Clinic, Inc.green2 sentences2015The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 12 v. Emory Clinic, 321 Ga. App. 457, 460 (1) (d) ( 739 SE2d 138 ) (2013) (physical precedent only). 2015The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 12 v. Emory Clinic, 321 Ga. App. 457, 460 (1) (d) ( 739 SE2d 138 ) (2013) (physical precedent only). | 1 | 1 |
Citizens Bank v. Mitchamgreen2 sentences2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear____”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. 2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear . . . .”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobbgreen2 sentences2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear____”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. 2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear . . . .”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Collins v. Davis
green
2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Denton v. Con-Way Southern Express, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 2016Cf. Anepohl v. Ferber, 202 Ga. App. 552, 552-53 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 415 SE2d 9 ) (1992) (reversing when plaintiff was granted a directed verdict on issue of defendant’s liability, but jury awarded no damages); Wilhelm v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 190 Ga. App. 869 ( 380 SE2d 276 ) (1989) (reversing “[i]n view of the probability that the improper admission of evidence regarding appellant’s collateral benefits directly influenced the jury into rendering a verdict that appellant recover nothing from appellee . . .” (emphasis supplied)); Moore v. Price, 158 Ga. App. 566, 566-68 (1), 568-69 (2) ( 281 SE2 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Eberhardt v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear____”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. 2014See OCGA § 9-11-61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Atlanta Coach, 178 Ga. at 551 (“This court has several times stated that in order to reverse a judgment both error and injury must affirmatively appear . . . .”); Eberhardt v. Bennett, 163 Ga. 796, 803 ( 137 SE 64 ) (1927) (“[I]t is not every error which will warrant the grant of a new trial. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.