7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Inquiry Concerning Judge Christian Coomergreen2 sentences2024The Hearing Panel also noted that Judge Peterson’s violation of Rule 1.1 was “clear” and that her “feigned ignorance” and “attempts to avoid responsibility” for the violation in her testimony “bordered on the farcical, severely eroding her credibility with the Hearing Panel.” This express finding of bad faith, which was based in significant part on the Panel’s personal observation of Judge Peterson’s testimony and the credibility determinations that flowed from it, is one to which we “offer considerable deference.” Coomer II, 316 Ga. at 866. 2024The Hearing Panel also noted that Judge Peterson’s violation of Rule 1.1 was “clear” and that her “feigned ignorance” and “attempts to avoid 47 responsibility” for the violation in her testimony “bordered on the farcical, severely eroding her credibility with the Hearing Panel.” This express finding of bad faith, which was based in significant part on the Panel’s personal observation of Judge Peterson’s testimony and the credibility determinations that flowed from it, is one to which we “offer considerable deference.” Coomer II, 316 Ga. at 866 . | 1 | 1 |
Inquiry Concerning Judge Christian Coomergreen2 sentences2024See also Coomer I, 315 Ga. at 862 (explaining that “this Court is not well positioned to resolve the factual questions of intent that are crucial to determining whether discipline is constitutionally permitted,” and that the Hearing Panel, which has the opportunity to hear live testimony and observe the demeanor of witnesses, is best suited to make such findings). 2024See also Coomer I, 315 Ga. at 862 (explaining that “this Court is not well positioned to resolve the factual questions of intent that are crucial to determining whether discipline is constitutionally permitted,” and that the Hearing Panel, which has the opportunity to hear live testimony and observe the demeanor of witnesses, is best suited to make such findings). | 1 | 1 |
MILLER v. HODGEgreen2 sentences2024Miller, 319 Ga. at 549 (1).4 4 We note that, even if Peterson had done everything in her power to resolve her challenge to Vie’s qualifications before the primary election, Peterson failed to utilize every available means to resolve that challenge after the primary election and before the general election. 2024Miller, 319 Ga. at 549 (1).4 4 We note that, even if Peterson had done everything in her power to resolve her challenge to Vie’s qualifications before the primary election, Peterson failed to utilize every available means to resolve that challenge after the primary election and before the general election. | 1 | 1 |
TSELIOS Et Al. v. SARSOURgreen2 sentences2018Rapps v. Cooke , 234 Ga. App. 131 , 131 (1), 505 S.E.2d 566 (1998) ; see Tselios v. Sarsour , 341 Ga. App. 471 , 473, 800 S.E.2d 636 (2017). 2018Rapps v. Cooke , 234 Ga. App. 131 , 131 (1), 505 S.E.2d 566 (1998) ; see Tselios v. Sarsour , 341 Ga. App. 471 , 473, 800 S.E.2d 636 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
Rapps v. Cookegreen2 sentences2018Rapps v. Cooke , 234 Ga. App. 131 , 131 (1), 505 S.E.2d 566 (1998) ; see Tselios v. Sarsour , 341 Ga. App. 471 , 473, 800 S.E.2d 636 (2017). 2018Rapps v. Cooke , 234 Ga. App. 131 , 131 (1), 505 S.E.2d 566 (1998) ; see Tselios v. Sarsour , 341 Ga. App. 471 , 473, 800 S.E.2d 636 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences2007See State v. Peterson, 273 Ga. 657 ( 543 SE2d 692 ) (2001). 2007See State v. Peterson, 273 Ga. 657 ( 543 SE2d 692 ) (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Danforth v. Bulmangreen2 sentences2007“Under the doctrine of negligent entrustment, a party is liable if he entrusts someone with an instrumentality, with actual knowledge that the person to whom he has entrusted the instrumentality is incompetent by reason of his age or inexperience, or his physical or mental condition, or his known habit of recklessness.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Danforth v. Bulman, 276 Ga. App. 531, 535 (2) ( 623 SE2d 732 ) (2005). 2007“Under the doctrine of negligent entrustment, a party is liable if he entrusts someone with an instrumentality, with actual knowledge that the person to whom he has entrusted the instrumentality is incompetent by reason of his age or inexperience, or his physical or mental condition, or his known habit of recklessness.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Danforth v. Bulman, 276 Ga. App. 531, 535 (2) ( 623 SE2d 732 ) (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Weldon v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See generally Weldon v. State, 202 Ga. App. 150 (2) ( 413 SE2d 466 ) (1991). 1994See generally Weldon v. State, 202 Ga. App. 150 (2) ( 413 SE2d 466 ) (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. State
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.