7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Windham & Windham, Inc. v. Suntrust Bankgreen2 sentences2012“We have held before that the failure to hold a hearing on a motion for summary judgment is not error if the party requesting a hearing fails to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3, which requires that any such request be made by a separate and distinct pleading.” (Citation omitted.) Windham & Windham, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, 313 Ga. App. 841, 844 (2) ( 723 SE2d 70 ) (2012). 2012“We have held before that the failure to hold a hearing on a motion for summary judgment is not error if the party requesting a hearing fails to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3, which requires that any such request be made by a separate and distinct pleading.” (Citation omitted.) Windham & Windham, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, 313 Ga. App. 841, 844 (2) ( 723 SE2d 70 ) (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Montos v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 (3) ( 95 SE2d 792 ) (1956); Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ) (1971). 1987See, e.g., Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 (3) ( 95 SE2d 792 ) (1956); Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ) (1971). | 1 | 2 |
Grot v. Capital One Bank (USA), N. A.green2 sentences2022Grot v. Capital One Bank (USA), 317 Ga. App. 786, 792 (5) ( 732 SE2d 305 ) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2022Grot v. Capital One Bank (USA), 317 Ga. App. 786, 792 (5) ( 732 SE2d 305 ) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Condon v. Vickerygreen2 sentences2012Condon v. Vickery, 270 Ga. App. 322, 325 (2) ( 606 SE2d 336 ) (2004) (a trial court has the discretion not to hold a hearing where a party fails to make a written request in a separate pleading). 2012Condon v. Vickery, 270 Ga. App. 322, 325 (2) ( 606 SE2d 336 ) (2004) (a trial court has the discretion not to hold a hearing where a party fails to make a written request in a separate pleading). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Childs v. State
green
2 sentences1989Appellant’s enumeration is controlled adversely to him by Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 ( 357 SE2d 48 ) (1987), in which the court approved the sheriff’s presence at the prosecution table despite the invocation of the rule, and noted; “ ‘[i]t has been repeatedly held that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness to remain in the courtroom to assist either the State or the accused.’ [Cit.] Generally, this discretion should be exercised only if the party requesting the exception can demonstrate a need for the presence of the witness. [Cits.] However, the sheriff is an of 1989Appellant’s enumeration is controlled adversely to him by Childs v. State, 257 Ga. 243 ( 357 SE2d 48 ) (1987), in which the court approved the sheriff’s presence at the prosecution table despite the invocation of the rule, and noted; “ ‘[i]t has been repeatedly held that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness to remain in the courtroom to assist either the State or the accused.’ [Cit.] Generally, this discretion should be exercised only if the party requesting the exception can demonstrate a need for the presence of the witness. [Cits.] However, the sheriff is an of | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stuart v. State
green
2 sentences1987See, e.g., Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 (3) ( 95 SE2d 792 ) (1956); Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ) (1971). 1987See, e.g., Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 (3) ( 95 SE2d 792 ) (1956); Stuart v. State, 123 Ga. App. 311 (1) ( 180 SE2d 581 ) (1971). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.