7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
LOVE v. FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORSgreen2 sentences2022See Love v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 311 Ga. 682, 698 (3) (e) (859 SE2d 33) (2021) (Where the trial court did not allow the petitioners to amend their petition to add necessary parties as defendants, which ruling effectively eliminated their claim for a tax refund, and the petitioners did not challenge that ruling on appeal, this Court was not required to address the trial 33 court’s alternative rationale for dismissing the petitioners’ claim for a refund.). 2022See Love v. Fulton County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 311 Ga. 682, 698 (3) (e) (859 SE2d 33) (2021) (Where the trial court did not allow the petitioners to amend their petition to add necessary parties as defendants, which ruling effectively eliminated their claim for a tax refund, and the petitioners did not challenge that ruling on appeal, this Court was not required to address the trial 33 court’s alternative rationale for dismissing the petitioners’ claim for a refund.). | 1 | 1 |
Monterey Community Council v. DeKalb County Planning Commissiongreen2 sentences2020See Monterey Community Council v. DeKalb County Planning Comm., 281 Ga. App. 873, 875 (1) ( 637 SE2d 488 ) (2006) (“County ordinances must be alleged and proved by production of the original or of a properly certified copy.”) (citation omitted). 2020See Monterey Community Council v. DeKalb County Planning Comm., 281 Ga. App. 873, 875 (1) ( 637 SE2d 488 ) (2006) (“County ordinances must be alleged and proved by production of the original or of a properly certified copy.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Resurgens, P.C. v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2019See Resurgens, 301 Ga. at 597-598 ; Simon, 350 Ga. App. at 297 . | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Caffreygreen2 sentences2013We disagree. 2 (Footnote and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Caffrey, 293 Ga. App. 269, 270 ( 666 SE2d 623 ) (2008). 3 Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. 2013We disagree. 2 (Footnote and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. Caffrey, 293 Ga. App. 269, 270 ( 666 SE2d 623 ) (2008). 3 Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. | 1 | 1 |
Hardin v. Councilgreen2 sentences1952"That one cotenant may occupy more than his proportionate share of the property, or even that he may be in possession of all of it, does not necessarily imply an ouster, the presumption being that his possession is not adverse, but is in common with the others, or for the common benefit, unless and until the contrary appears." Hardin v. Council, 200 Ga. 822, 831 ( 38 S. E. 2d, 549 ), and cases cited. 1952"That one cotenant may occupy more than his proportionate share of the property, or even that he may be in possession of all of it, does not necessarily imply an ouster, the presumption being that his possession is not adverse, but is in common with the others, or for the common benefit, unless and until the contrary appears." Hardin v. Council, 200 Ga. 822, 831 ( 38 S. E. 2d, 549 ), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SIMON v. MURPHY Et Al.
green
1 sentence2019See Resurgens, 301 Ga. at 597-598 ; Simon, 350 Ga. App. at 297 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Creech v. Richards
neutral
1 sentence1966Creech v. Richards, 76 Ga. 36 ; Chance v. Metropolitan Life Ins. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Laurens County Board of Education v. Stanley
green
1 sentence1939Under the decision of this court in the present suit ( 187 Ga. 389 , supra), “the deed under which the petitioners claim title to the land [was] absolutely void as a muniment of title [because of its insufficient description of the land], and . . the petition [failed] to state a cause of action for the relief sought.” Although the first amendment of the petition, made before the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the trial court, set forth a sufficient description of the property now claimed by the petitioners, the amendment contained nothing which would validate the deed or make | 1 | 1939–1939 |
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.