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 1897–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tucker v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Tucker v. State, 228 Ga. App. 321, 325 (2) ( 491 SE2d 420 ) (1997) (no harm demonstrated where prosecutor asked defendant on cross-examination whether a state’s witness had lied). (f) Towry argues that his trial counsel should have investigated, prepared, and presented evidence from an expert in child interviewing techniques to testify regarding the videotaped police interview of J. 2010See Tucker v. State, 228 Ga. App. 321, 325 (2) ( 491 SE2d 420 ) (1997) (no harm demonstrated where prosecutor asked defendant on cross-examination whether a state’s witness had lied). (f) Towry argues that his trial counsel should have investigated, prepared, and presented evidence from an expert in child interviewing techniques to testify regarding the videotaped police interview of J. | 2 | 2 |
Railroad Commission v. Macon Railway & Light Co.green1 sentence2025It is more reasonable to assume that the General Assembly would have given such power in express terms.” Railroad Commission, 151 Ga. at 258-259 (2). | 1 | 1 |
Turtle v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578, 7 Appellant does not identify any such ruling in the record, and neither party asserts that the court made a clear ruling on the State’s objection during the off-the-record bench conference. 11 582-583 (581 SE2d 23) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not impermissibly restrict cross-examination where the only limitation concerned the specific nature of the pending criminal charges and “the jury learned through . . . cross examination that [the witness] had charges currently pending against her, that she had been indicted by a grand jury, and the 2021See, e.g., Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578, 7 Appellant does not identify any such ruling in the record, and neither party asserts that the court made a clear ruling on the State’s objection during the off-the-record bench conference. 11 582-583 (581 SE2d 23) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not impermissibly restrict cross-examination where the only limitation concerned the specific nature of the pending criminal charges and “the jury learned through . . . cross examination that [the witness] had charges currently pending against her, that she had been indicted by a grand jury, and the | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578, 7 Appellant does not identify any such ruling in the record, and neither party asserts that the court made a clear ruling on the State’s objection during the off-the-record bench conference. 11 582-583 (581 SE2d 23) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not impermissibly restrict cross-examination where the only limitation concerned the specific nature of the pending criminal charges and “the jury learned through . . . cross examination that [the witness] had charges currently pending against her, that she had been indicted by a grand jury, and the 2021See, e.g., Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578, 7 Appellant does not identify any such ruling in the record, and neither party asserts that the court made a clear ruling on the State’s objection during the off-the-record bench conference. 11 582-583 (581 SE2d 23) (2003) (holding that the trial court did not impermissibly restrict cross-examination where the only limitation concerned the specific nature of the pending criminal charges and “the jury learned through . . . cross examination that [the witness] had charges currently pending against her, that she had been indicted by a grand jury, and the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences1997But a request to search does not have this effect, as noted in State v. Foster, 209 Ga. App. 143, 145, n. 1 ( 433 SE2d 109 ) (1993): “[T]he officers in this case, though having facts sufficient to support a brief detention, initially pressed for consent to search, and when no consent was given, initiated a nonconsensual investigation pursuant to Terry.” While Redd’s account of the incident supports his contention that he answered the officer’s questions and the inquiry had ended before he left the scene, the trial court was authorized to believe the officer’s account and conclude that Redd did 1997But a request to search does not have this effect, as noted in State v. Foster, 209 Ga. App. 143, 145, n. 1 ( 433 SE2d 109 ) (1993): “[T]he officers in this case, though having facts sufficient to support a brief detention, initially pressed for consent to search, and when no consent was given, initiated a nonconsensual investigation pursuant to Terry.” While Redd’s account of the incident supports his contention that he answered the officer’s questions and the inquiry had ended before he left the scene, the trial court was authorized to believe the officer’s account and conclude that Redd did | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hightowergreen1 sentence1976See State v. Hightower, supra. The record here shows that there was no reporting of or transcript made of appellant’s commitment hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cohen v. Hartlage
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Myers v. State
green
1 sentence1897This court in the case of Myers v. State, 97 Ga. 76 , speaking through Justice Atkinson, expressed not only the sentiments of the court, but those of all good citizens as well, when it said: “Since under our benign state of government no man can be deprived of life, liberty or property, except upon the judgment of his peers, it is the duty of courts scrupulously to guard the right of trial by jury as one of the essential incidents of our judicial system, and one the maintenance of which in its purity and integrity is necessary, not only to the perpetuity of our institutions of government, but | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.