7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Only “[w]here a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, . . . must [we] correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the Georgia provision to be different.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. 7 or a trait of character shall not be admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except for . . . evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same; or evidence 2017Only “[w]here a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, . . . must [we] correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the Georgia provision to be different.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. | 3 | 6 |
Flading v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour | 1 | 1 |
Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.green2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour | 1 | 1 |
Allen v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour 2015See Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 1.9 Where a provision of the new Evidence Code differs in substance from the counterpart federal rule, as interpreted by federal courts, we must correspondingly presume that the General Assembly meant the 9 See also Allen v. State, 286 Ga. 392, 395 ( 687 SE2d 799 ) (2010) (“Because the language of OCGA § 24-9-84.1 (b) mirrors that of Rule 609 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the statutes based on Rule 609 (b) that have been enacted by several other states, we look for guidance to the judicial decisions of the federal courts construing Rule 609 (b) and the cour | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.