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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2021 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Eric C. Paynegreen2 sentences2021See United States v. Payne, 63 F3d 1200, 1210-1211 (II) (A) (2) (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that the suppression of impeachment evidence does not warrant a new trial where the testimony of the witness who might have been impeached was 12 corroborated by other evidence and holding that the evidence presented at trial was “sufficiently strong” to support the appellate court’s concluding that the suppression in the case “d[id] not undermine [the appellate court’s] confidence in the outcome of the trial” and that the suppressed evidence therefore was “not material”). 2021See United States v. Payne, 63 F3d 1200, 1210-1211 (II) (A) (2) (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that the suppression of impeachment evidence does not warrant a new trial where the testimony of the witness who might have been impeached was 12 corroborated by other evidence and holding that the evidence presented at trial was “sufficiently strong” to support the appellate court’s concluding that the suppression in the case “d[id] not undermine [the appellate court’s] confidence in the outcome of the trial” and that the suppressed evidence therefore was “not material”). | 3 | 3 |
McCray v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017). 2021See McCray v. State, 301 Ga. 241, 246 (2) (c) ( 799 SE2d 206 ) (2017). | 3 | 3 |
Schofield v. Palmergreen2 sentences2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c 2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 2 | 2 |
Burgeson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102, 104 (2) ( 475 SE2d 580 ) (1996) (setting out the elements of an evidence suppression claim). 2007See Burgeson v. State, 267 Ga. 102, 104 (2) ( 475 SE2d 580 ) (1996) (setting out the elements of an evidence suppression claim). | 2 | 2 |
Curtis Osborne v. William Terrygreen1 sentence2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c 2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Francisgreen2 sentences2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c 2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen1 sentence2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Alabamagreen1 sentence2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Waldrip v. Headgreen2 sentences2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c 2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Turpin v. Toddgreen2 sentences2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c 2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 1 | 1 |
Head v. Ferrellgreen1 sentence2008See also Waldrip v. Head, 279 Ga. 826, 832-833 (II) (H) ( 620 SE2d 829 ) (2005) (applying procedural default and the cause and prejudice test to an evidence suppression claim). 5 Ferrell, 274 Ga. at 401-402 (III) (describing the cause and prejudice test and noting that relief is also available despite procedural default under circumstances, not alleged to he present in Whatley’s case, amounting to a miscarriage of justice). 6 Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848, 851 (2) ( 621 SE2d 726 ) (2005). 7 Id. at 852 (2). 8 See Turpin v. Todd, 268 Ga. 820, 824-827 (2) (a) ( 493 SE2d 900 ) (1997) (finding c | 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.