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 2 courts 1979–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prater v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Moreover, insistence upon precise identity of issues . . . [is] out of place with respect to former testimony where the question is . . . merely .. . the salvaging, for what it may be worth, of the testimony of a witness not now available in person.” [Cit.] Prater, supra, 148 Ga. App. at 837-838 (5) (A) (2) (holding that prior testimony from a commitment hearing and an extradition hearing in Tennessee was admissible at defendant’s burglary and armed robbery trial). 2008However, there must be “sufficient similarity so that there was previously an adequate opportunity for cross examination.” Prater, supra, 148 Ga. App. at 837 (5) (A) (2). | 1 | 1 |
Charlton v. Kellygreen1 sentence1998See Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447 (33 SC 945, 57 LE 1274) (1913); State v. Tyler, 398 S2d 1108, 1111 (La. 1981). 2 “Fugitivity means presence in the demanding state when the crime was allegedly committed.” Moncrief v. Anderson, 342 F2d 902, 904 (DC Cir. 1964). 3 Oliver’s amended petition for habeas corpus reads, in pertinent part: Petitioner’s counsel has serious doubts about his client’s competency to proceed with an extradition 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2000Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 , supra. Relying upon Edwards and Roper v. State, 258 Ga. 847 ( 375 SE2d 600 ) (1989), Gosdin argues his confession should have been suppressed because Chief Montgomery initiated the interview with Gosdin after an attorney was appointed to represent him at the extradition hearing. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Roper v. State
green
2 sentences2000Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 , supra. Relying upon Edwards and Roper v. State, 258 Ga. 847 ( 375 SE2d 600 ) (1989), Gosdin argues his confession should have been suppressed because Chief Montgomery initiated the interview with Gosdin after an attorney was appointed to represent him at the extradition hearing. 2000Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477 , supra. Relying upon Edwards and Roper v. State, 258 Ga. 847 ( 375 SE2d 600 ) (1989), Gosdin argues his confession should have been suppressed because Chief Montgomery initiated the interview with Gosdin after an attorney was appointed to represent him at the extradition hearing. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Vanhouten v. State
green
1 sentence1993In Vanhouten, supra at 873 , we noted that “[t]his rule does not demand that all the issues or parties be the same but requires only that the issue on which, the testimony was offered in the first suit be the same as the issue upon which it is offered in the second. [Cit.]” However, unlike in the present case the state in Vanhouten did not have the right to cross-examine the deceased witness in the prior administrative hearing and the issue for which the testimony was offered in the administrative hearing was not the same as that for which the defendant was being tried. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Collins v. Loisel
green
1 sentence1984Collins v. Loisel, 262 U. S. 426 (1), supra. In summary, a probation revocation hearing is similar to a preliminary hearing, and jeopardy does not attach at a preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Johnson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1982Johnson v. State, 120 Ga. 135 (1) ( 47 SE 510 ) (1904); Blocker v. State, 58 Ga. App. 560 (2) ( 199 SE 444 ) (1938). 1982Johnson v. State, 120 Ga. 135 (1) ( 47 SE 510 ) (1904); Blocker v. State, 58 Ga. App. 560 (2) ( 199 SE 444 ) (1938). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Blocker v. State
green
2 sentences1982Johnson v. State, 120 Ga. 135 (1) ( 47 SE 510 ) (1904); Blocker v. State, 58 Ga. App. 560 (2) ( 199 SE 444 ) (1938). 1982Johnson v. State, 120 Ga. 135 (1) ( 47 SE 510 ) (1904); Blocker v. State, 58 Ga. App. 560 (2) ( 199 SE 444 ) (1938). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Collins v. Stynchcombe
green
2 sentences1979At his hearing to determine whether Prater should be returned to Georgia to stand trial in this case, the limited issues were "(1) whether a crime has been properly charged in the demanding State; (2) whether the fugitive in custody is the person so charged; and (3) whether the fugitive was in the demanding State at the time the crime alleged was committed.” Collins v. Stynchcombe, 226 Ga. 776 ( 177 SE2d 682 ) (1970). 1979At his hearing to determine whether Prater should be returned to Georgia to stand trial in this case, the limited issues were "(1) whether a crime has been properly charged in the demanding State; (2) whether the fugitive in custody is the person so charged; and (3) whether the fugitive was in the demanding State at the time the crime alleged was committed.” Collins v. Stynchcombe, 226 Ga. 776 ( 177 SE2d 682 ) (1970). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.