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 1951–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cannon v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. 2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Beall v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. 2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Helmeci v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. 2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Lamons v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Compare Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511 ( 340 SE2d 183 ) (1986). 1990Compare Lamons v. State, 255 Ga. 511 ( 340 SE2d 183 ) (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Bradford v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. 1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Heard v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. 1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. | 1 | 1 |
Stidem v. Stategreen2 sentences1983Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, “ [w] e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.” Stidem v. State, 246 Ga. 637, 639 ( 272 SE2d 338 ) (1980). 4. 1983Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, “ [w] e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.” Stidem v. State, 246 Ga. 637, 639 ( 272 SE2d 338 ) (1980). 4. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cheeks v. State
green
2 sentences2002However, the transcript from the hearing was not included with the record on appeal. 5 Beall, supra at 140 (4); Cardwell, supra; Revis, supra. 6 218 Ga. App. 212 ( 460 SE2d 860 ) (1995). 7 See id. 8 See id. at 214 . 9 See Beall, supra. 10 Cardwell, supra at 338 . 11 See id. 2002However, the transcript from the hearing was not included with the record on appeal. 5 Beall, supra at 140 (4); Cardwell, supra; Revis, supra. 6 218 Ga. App. 212 ( 460 SE2d 860 ) (1995). 7 See id. 8 See id. at 214 . 9 See Beall, supra. 10 Cardwell, supra at 338 . 11 See id. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Cardwell v. State
green
2 sentences2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. 2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Revis v. State
green
2 sentences2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. 2002Hobbs, Deputy Attorney General, David S. McLaughlin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 1 See Cannon v. State, 246 Ga. 754, 755-756 (3) ( 272 SE2d 709 ) (1980) (addressing predecessor statutes to OCGA §§ 17-14-8 through 17-14-10). 2 Helmeci v. State, 230 Ga. App. 866, 870 (4) ( 498 SE2d 326 ) (1998). 3 See Beall v. State, 252 Ga. App. 138, 139-140 (4) ( 555 SE2d 788 ) (2001); Cardwell v. State, 225 Ga. App. 337 -338 ( 484 SE2d 38 ) (1997); Revis v. State, 223 Ga. App. 470 (1) ( 477 SE2d 880 ) (1996). 4 In its brief, the State sets forth the testimony adduced at the hearing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lockridge v. State
green
2 sentences1995"There is a presumption of prejudice to the defendant when an irregularity in the conduct of a juror is shown and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no harm has occurred. [Cit.]" Lockridge v. State, 260 Ga. 528, 529 , 397 S.E.2d 695 (1990). *745 The testimony adduced at the hearing indicated that the juror's only improper communication was with his girlfriend, who was neither a witness nor a juror in the case. 1995"There is a presumption of prejudice to the defendant when an irregularity in the conduct of a juror is shown and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no harm has occurred. [Cit.]" Lockridge v. State, 260 Ga. 528, 529 , 397 S.E.2d 695 (1990). *745 The testimony adduced at the hearing indicated that the juror's only improper communication was with his girlfriend, who was neither a witness nor a juror in the case. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Berry v. State
green
2 sentences1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. 1985Upon a review of the testimony adduced at the hearing, "`(w)e cannot say that this ruling in favor of admissibility [was] erroneous.'" Bradford v. State, 166 Ga. App. 584, 585 ( 305 SE2d 32 ) (1983); see also Heard v. State, 165 Ga. App. 252, 253 ( 300 SE2d 213 ) (1983); Berry v. State, 254 Ga. 101 ( 326 SE2d 748 ) (1985). 4. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1971Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551 ( 181 SE2d 866 ). 1971Burnette Ford, Inc. v. Hayes, 227 Ga. 551 ( 181 SE2d 866 ). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1951(After stating the foregoing facts.) The testimony adduced on the hearing of this case is markedly similar to that found in Continental Casualty Co. v. Bennett, 69 Ga. App. 683 ( 26 S. E. 2d, 682 ), in which case the claimant, having suffered an apparently trivial eye injury, lost his vision some weeks later. 1951(After stating the foregoing facts.) The testimony adduced on the hearing of this case is markedly similar to that found in Continental Casualty Co. v. Bennett, 69 Ga. App. 683 ( 26 S. E. 2d, 682 ), in which case the claimant, having suffered an apparently trivial eye injury, lost his vision some weeks later. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.