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 1922–1967 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 |
|---|---|---|
Massey v. Stategreen2 sentences1967See Massey v. State, 222 Ga. 143, 150 ( 149 SE2d 118 ). 1967See Massey v. State, 222 Ga. 143, 150 ( 149 SE2d 118 ). | 1 | 1 |
Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences1949As was said in Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwards, 16 Ga. App. 518, 521 ( 85 S. E. 687 ): “Under this general assignment of error, no error committed by the court, and no question other than as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, could be considered, and the only other errors that might be considered were such as were specifically assigned.” Where there is any evidence to sustain- the trial court’s judgment the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court on certiorari. 1949As was said in Birdford Supply Co. v. Edwards, 16 Ga. App. 518, 521 ( 85 S. E. 687 ): “Under this general assignment of error, no error committed by the court, and no question other than as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, could be considered, and the only other errors that might be considered were such as were specifically assigned.” Where there is any evidence to sustain- the trial court’s judgment the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court on certiorari. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. State
green
2 sentences1967It is insisted that under Georgia law questions of voluntariness of a confession have been held to be issues for determination by a jury, citing Claybourn v. State, 190 Ga. 861 ( 11 SE2d 23 ), and Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686 ( 13 SE2d 820 ). 1967It is insisted that under Georgia law questions of voluntariness of a confession have been held to be issues for determination by a jury, citing Claybourn v. State, 190 Ga. 861 ( 11 SE2d 23 ), and Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686 ( 13 SE2d 820 ). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Claybourn v. State
green
2 sentences1967It is insisted that under Georgia law questions of voluntariness of a confession have been held to be issues for determination by a jury, citing Claybourn v. State, 190 Ga. 861 ( 11 SE2d 23 ), and Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686 ( 13 SE2d 820 ). 1967It is insisted that under Georgia law questions of voluntariness of a confession have been held to be issues for determination by a jury, citing Claybourn v. State, 190 Ga. 861 ( 11 SE2d 23 ), and Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686 ( 13 SE2d 820 ). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Tree v. City of Atlanta
neutral
2 sentences1960The third assignment of error complains that the trial court erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss the defendant’s “special plea of res judicata and/or estoppel by judgment as amended.” Neither the writ of error nor the record discloses the ground, or grounds, upon which the oral motion to dismiss was based, and under the full-bench decision of the Supreme Court in Tree v. City of Atlanta, 144 Ga. 757 (1) ( 87 S. E. 1021 ), no question for decision is presented to this court by such assignment of error. 4. 1960The third assignment of error complains that the trial court erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss the defendant’s “special plea of res judicata and/or estoppel by judgment as amended.” Neither the writ of error nor the record discloses the ground, or grounds, upon which the oral motion to dismiss was based, and under the full-bench decision of the Supreme Court in Tree v. City of Atlanta, 144 Ga. 757 (1) ( 87 S. E. 1021 ), no question for decision is presented to this court by such assignment of error. 4. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
King v. Walsh
neutral
2 sentences1959King v. Walsh, 48 Ga. App. 741 (1) ( 173 S. E. 435 ). 3. 1959King v. Walsh, 48 Ga. App. 741 (1) ( 173 S. E. 435 ). 3. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Hays v. Azbill
neutral
1 sentence1939In Frear v. Caldwell, 76 Okla. 313 ( 184 Pac. 771, 773-3 ), it was said: “The third assignment of error is that the court erred in setting aside the findings of fact made by the referee, and made findings of its own, upon which he rendered judgment. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Frear v. State Ex Rel. Caldwell
neutral
1 sentence1939In Frear v. Caldwell, 76 Okla. 313 ( 184 Pac. 771, 773-3 ), it was said: “The third assignment of error is that the court erred in setting aside the findings of fact made by the referee, and made findings of its own, upon which he rendered judgment. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Love v. Love
green
1 sentence1922Love v. Love, 146 Ga. 161 , 162 ( 91 S. E. 27 ), and authorities cited. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.