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 1906–1944 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rawlins v. Stategreen2 sentences1944See also Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31 ( 52 S. E. 1 ), affirmed in 201 U. S. 638 (26 Sup. Ct. 560, 50 L. ed. 899, 5 Ann. 1944See also Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31 ( 52 S. E. 1 ), affirmed in 201 U. S. 638 (26 Sup. Ct. 560, 50 L. ed. 899, 5 Ann. | 1 | 1 |
Rawlins v. Georgiagreen1 sentence1944See also Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31 ( 52 S. E. 1 ), affirmed in 201 U. S. 638 (26 Sup. Ct. 560, 50 L. ed. 899, 5 Ann. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences1931Hill v. State, 122 Ga. 166 ( 50 S. E. 57 ). 1931Hill v. State, 122 Ga. 166 ( 50 S. E. 57 ). | 3 | 1906–1931 |
Powers v. State
green
1 sentence1944Accordingly, the fact that the panel may have included the names of certain jurors, who had appeared in a panel presented in a previous trial of the defendant, and who had been peremptorily challenged by the defendant, does not constitute a good ground of challenge to the array. (b) “Under our law as it stands, females are not subject to jury duty, it being provided in the act of the General Assembly, approved August 13, 1921 (Acts 1921, p. 106), that 'females shall not be liable to discharge any military, jury, police, patrol, or road duty.’ And this law is not obnoxious to the nineteenth ame | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Withers v. Maddox Coffee Co.
green
1 sentence1944Accordingly, the fact that the panel may have included the names of certain jurors, who had appeared in a panel presented in a previous trial of the defendant, and who had been peremptorily challenged by the defendant, does not constitute a good ground of challenge to the array. (b) “Under our law as it stands, females are not subject to jury duty, it being provided in the act of the General Assembly, approved August 13, 1921 (Acts 1921, p. 106), that 'females shall not be liable to discharge any military, jury, police, patrol, or road duty.’ And this law is not obnoxious to the nineteenth ame | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Hendricks v. Rogers
neutral
2 sentences1937Hendricks v. Rogers, 174 Ga. 423 (4) ( 163 S. E. 204 ); Central Ry. 1937Hendricks v. Rogers, 174 Ga. 423 (4) ( 163 S. E. 204 ); Central Ry. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Brinkley v. State
green
1 sentence1936We think, therefore, that the monthly term fades from the picture, and we can consider this case as if there were no monthly term; and this case should be tried with respect to the quarterly terms “as similar cases would be tried in the superior court.” In the superior court, “when, at the adjournment at the regular term of a court, it is ordered that an adjourned term will be held, a jury is drawn therefor, and the adjourned term continues for more than one week, it is competent for the judge to hold the jury for the second week, and it is not a good ground for challenge to the array that thi | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Sharpe v. Mathews
green
2 sentences1932Sharpe v. Matthews, 123 Ga. 794 ( 51 S. E. 706 ); Bashinski v. Swint, 133 Ga. 38 ( 65 S. E. 152 ). 1932Sharpe v. Matthews, 123 Ga. 794 ( 51 S. E. 706 ); Bashinski v. Swint, 133 Ga. 38 ( 65 S. E. 152 ). | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Bashinski v. Swint
green
2 sentences1932Sharpe v. Matthews, 123 Ga. 794 ( 51 S. E. 706 ); Bashinski v. Swint, 133 Ga. 38 ( 65 S. E. 152 ). 1932Sharpe v. Matthews, 123 Ga. 794 ( 51 S. E. 706 ); Bashinski v. Swint, 133 Ga. 38 ( 65 S. E. 152 ). | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Jordan v. State
green
2 sentences1915Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443 (6), 445 ( 46 S. E. 679 ); Hill v. State, 122 Ga. 166 ( 50 S. E. 57 ). 2. 1915Jordan v. State, 119 Ga. 443 (6), 445 ( 46 S. E. 679 ); Hill v. State, 122 Ga. 166 ( 50 S. E. 57 ). 2. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
McFarlin v. State
green
1 sentence1906Ineligibility of a juror because of service in the same court during the next preceding term thereof renders him incompetent propter defectum, and is a good ground of challenge made or plea in abatement filed, in due time (McFarlin v. State, 121 Ga. 329 ), but is not cause for a new trial, even though the fact of his ineligibility was not known till after verdict or sentence. | 1 | 1906–1906 |
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.