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 1898–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malcom v. Webbgreen2 sentences2025Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 439 (1) ( 774 SE2d 668 ) (2015); see also Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 738 ( 76 SE2d 12 ) (1953) (“We therefore hold that in all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). 2015Compare Milton, 139 Ga. at 618-619 (“when the proceedings are instituted for the usurpation of an office claimed by the relator as a matter of right, it has been held to be immaterial whether he proceeds in the first instance by the rule nisi or asks leave to file the information”); Walker, 209 Ga. at 738 (“[I]n all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). | 3 | 3 |
Milton v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2015Compare Milton, 139 Ga. at 618-619 (“when the proceedings are instituted for the usurpation of an office claimed by the relator as a matter of right, it has been held to be immaterial whether he proceeds in the first instance by the rule nisi or asks leave to file the information”); Walker, 209 Ga. at 738 (“[I]n all cases of applications to file an 2 The propriety of the vote on the motion to terminate Boone’s services is not an issue in this quo warranto action, see OCGA § 9-6-60, and therefore, we do not address that issue in this opinion. 5 information in the nature of a quo warranto the ju 2015Compare Milton, 139 Ga. at 618-619 (“when the proceedings are instituted for the usurpation of an office claimed by the relator as a matter of right, it has been held to be immaterial whether he proceeds in the first instance by the rule nisi or asks leave to file the information”); Walker, 209 Ga. at 738 (“[I]n all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Hamiltongreen1 sentence2025Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 439 (1) ( 774 SE2d 668 ) (2015); see also Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 738 ( 76 SE2d 12 ) (1953) (“We therefore hold that in all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Boonegreen2 sentences2025Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 439 (1) ( 774 SE2d 668 ) (2015); see also Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 738 ( 76 SE2d 12 ) (1953) (“We therefore hold that in all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). 2025Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 439 (1) ( 774 SE2d 668 ) (2015); see also Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 738 ( 76 SE2d 12 ) (1953) (“We therefore hold that in all cases of applications to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto the judge to whom it is presented is authorized to issue a rule to show cause why it should not be granted, and upon a return of the rule to hear and consider evidence relevant to the matter involved.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Millsgreen1 sentence1937See McCowan v. Brooks, 113 Ga. 384, 386 (39 S. E. 112 ). | 1 | 1 |
McCowan v. Brooksgreen1 sentence1937See McCowan v. Brooks, 113 Ga. 384, 386 (39 S. E. 112 ). | 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. Abdi
green
1 sentence1987State v. Abdi, 162 Ga. App. 20, 22 , supra.) Thus, the posture of the trial was such that it could either be completed without the defense witness, a choice presumably prejudicial to defendant, or the completion of the trial could have been delayed to permit the return of the defense witness on the second following day, a choice which defendant emphatically argued against as being prejudicial. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982However, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (94 SC 2997, 41 LE2d 789) (1974) the “public interest” test established in Rosenbloom was rejected in favor of a return to an analysis based upon the status of the individual defamed. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Christian v. Penn
neutral
1 sentence1904Among the cases, earlier and later thaiUEhose overruled, consonant with the ruling in the present case, might also be cited: Christian v. Penn, 5 Ga. 482 ; Pearson v. Reid, 10 Ga. 582 ; Central R. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Brooks v. Colby
neutral
1 sentence1898Brooks v. Colby, 25 Ga. 634 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.