7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1992–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of S. T.green2 sentences1993The reviewing court is to defer to the lower court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test. . ., is not met. . . .’ [Cit.]” In the Interest of S. T., 201 Ga. App. 37, 40 (4) ( 410 SE2d 312 ) (1991). 1993The reviewing court is to defer to the lower court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test. . ., is not met. . . .’ [Cit.]” In the Interest of S. T., 201 Ga. App. 37, 40 (4) ( 410 SE2d 312 ) (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Santosky v. Kramergreen1 sentence1997See OCGA § 15-11-86 (parental rights shall be terminated only by clear and convincing evidence); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 758-759, 769 (102 SC 1388, 71 LE2d 599) (1982). “ ‘The reviewing court is to defer to the lower court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test, is not met.’ [Cit.]” In the Interest ofE. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of A. L. L.green2 sentences1997L., 211 Ga. App. 767, 770 ( 440 SE2d 517 ) (1994). 1997L., 211 Ga. App. 767, 770 ( 440 SE2d 517 ) (1994). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of B. L.green2 sentences1992L., 196 Ga. App. 807, 809 (3) ( 397 SE2d 156 ) (1990). 1992L., 196 Ga. App. 807, 809 (3) ( 397 SE2d 156 ) (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of T. M. R.
green
2 sentences1996"The reviewing court is to defer to the lower court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test, is not met." Id. 1996“The reviewing court is to defer to the lower court in the area of factfinding and should affirm unless the appellate standard of review, here the rational factfinder test, is not met.” Id. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
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.