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 2011–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY v. KOCHgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Koch, 303 Ga. at 343-344 (3). 18 the City’s own admissions counter this argument. 2024See, e.g., Koch, 303 Ga. at 343-344 (3). 18 the City’s own admissions counter this argument. | 2 | 2 |
Ake v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences2014Contrary to Perkins’s claim, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 83 ( 105 SCt 1087 , 84 LE2d 53) (1985), did not require the trial court to sua sponte investigate or raise an insanity defense on his behalf. 2014Contrary to Perkins’s claim, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 83 ( 105 SCt 1087 , 84 LE2d 53) (1985), did not require the trial court to sua sponte investigate or raise an insanity defense on his behalf. | 2 | 2 |
Manner v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Manner v. State, 302 Ga. 877, 884 (808 SE2d 681) (2017) (even where evidence sufficient to warrant accomplice-corroboration charge, “it was not objectively unreasonable for counsel to conclude that any benefit to [the defendant] in instructing the jury that [his accomplice’s] testimony characterized as an “odd” conversation between Glover and a man with a dreadlock hairstyle earlier on the day of Menefee’s murder and evidence that Glover, without first looking through her apartment door’s peephole, opened to door to four armed men despite Menefee’s instructions earlier that night “not to a 2022See Manner v. State, 302 Ga. 877, 884 (808 SE2d 681) (2017) (even where evidence sufficient to warrant accomplice-corroboration charge, “it was not objectively unreasonable for counsel to conclude that any benefit to [the defendant] in instructing the jury that [his accomplice’s] testimony characterized as an “odd” conversation between Glover and a man with a dreadlock hairstyle earlier on the day of Menefee’s murder and evidence that Glover, without first looking through her apartment door’s peephole, opened to door to four armed men despite Menefee’s instructions earlier that night “not to a | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Cohrangreen2 sentences2018See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 ( 536 SE2d 187 ) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 ( 326 SE2d 5 ) (1985). 2018See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 ( 536 SE2d 187 ) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 ( 326 SE2d 5 ) (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Savage v. Newsomegreen2 sentences2018See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 ( 536 SE2d 187 ) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 ( 326 SE2d 5 ) (1985). 2018See Bell v. Cohran, 244 Ga. App. 510, 511 ( 536 SE2d 187 ) (2000); Savage v. Newsome, 173 Ga. App. 271, 271 ( 326 SE2d 5 ) (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Head v. Thomasongreen2 sentences2011See Head v. Thomason, 276 Ga. 434, 441 ( 578 SE2d 426 ) (2003) (“The habeas court correctly found Thomason’s claim he was tried while incompetent was barred by procedural default and no cause or prejudice had been shown to overcome that bar.”). 2011See Head v. Thomason, 276 Ga. 434, 441 ( 578 SE2d 426 ) (2003) (“The habeas court correctly found Thomason’s claim he was tried while incompetent was barred by procedural default and no cause or prejudice had been shown to overcome that bar.”). | 1 | 1 |
Turpin v. Hillgreen2 sentences2011Never- theless, the dissent asserts that applying the exception to Perkins’ claim is simply an application of our decision in Turpin v. Hill, 269 Ga. 302 ( 498 SE2d 52 ) (1998), where we held that the exception applied to a claim of mental retardation that would preclude a death sentence. 2011Never- theless, the dissent asserts that applying the exception to Perkins’ claim is simply an application of our decision in Turpin v. Hill, 269 Ga. 302 ( 498 SE2d 52 ) (1998), where we held that the exception applied to a claim of mental retardation that would preclude a death sentence. | 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.