7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hester v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Hester v. State, 282 Ga. 239, 242 (3) ( 647 SE2d 60 ) (2007). 2014See Hester v. State, 282 Ga. 239, 242 (3) ( 647 SE2d 60 ) (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2011Compare Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593 ( 619 SE2d 656 ) (2005) (conviction properly vacated where, despite knowledge of defendant’s history of mental illness, counsel failed altogether to seek expert mental health evaluation or otherwise investigate the issue). (b) Abernathy next asserts that trial counsel failed to develop a cohesive defense strategy and otherwise to pursue a vigorous defense, a claim which is belied by the record. 2011Compare Martin v. Barrett, 279 Ga. 593 ( 619 SE2d 656 ) (2005) (conviction properly vacated where, despite knowledge of defendant’s history of mental illness, counsel failed altogether to seek expert mental health evaluation or otherwise investigate the issue). (b) Abernathy next asserts that trial counsel failed to develop a cohesive defense strategy and otherwise to pursue a vigorous defense, a claim which is belied by the record. | 1 | 1 |
Guhl v. Tugglegreen1 sentence2008See Guhl v. Tuggle, 242 Ga. 412, 414 (1) ( 249 SE2d 219 ) (1978) (county not harmed by failure of property owners to name it as a party in a suit seeking to have zoning declared unconstitutional since the members of the county’s zoning and governing authority were parties and a vigorous defense was presented on their behalf). | 1 | 1 |
Ruffin v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Ruffin v. State, 283 Ga. 87, 91 (12) (d) ( 656 SE2d 140 ) (2008). 2008See Ruffin v. State, 283 Ga. 87, 91 (12) (d) ( 656 SE2d 140 ) (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Judd v. Valdosta/Lowndes County Zoning Board of Appealsgreen2 sentences2008See also Judd v. Valdosta/Lowndes County Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 147 Ga. App. 128 (2) ( 248 SE2d 196 ) (1978) (where applicant to whom a special exception was granted was named as a defendant in the appeal in superior court from the ZBA’s action, the property owner was not an indispensable party and the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to join an indispensable party). 2008See also Judd v. Valdosta/Lowndes County Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 147 Ga. App. 128 (2) ( 248 SE2d 196 ) (1978) (where applicant to whom a special exception was granted was named as a defendant in the appeal in superior court from the ZBA’s action, the property owner was not an indispensable party and the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to join an indispensable party). | 1 | 1 |
Welbon v. Stategreen2 sentences2004“There is a strong presumption that trial counsel provided effective representation, and we will not find ineffectiveness if trial counsel’s strategy and trial tactics were reasonable at the time.” (Footnotes omitted.) Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312, 313 (2) ( 602 SE2d 610 ) (2004). 2004“There is a strong presumption that trial counsel provided effective representation, and we will not find ineffectiveness if trial counsel’s strategy and trial tactics were reasonable at the time.” (Footnotes omitted.) Welbon v. State, 278 Ga. 312, 313 (2) ( 602 SE2d 610 ) (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howerton v. Danenberg
green
1 sentence2006This is so because “the defense attorneys were subject to the encumbrance that the prosecutor might take umbrage at a vigorous defense of the defendant and dispense with the services of their firm.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. *296 Here, there was no representation of both the defendant and the prosecutor, and no concurrence of trial counsel’s involvement with them. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Glass v. Byrom
green
2 sentences1983While any one of the foregoing circumstances, in and of itself, might not be sufficient to support a finding that appellant had waived its insufficiency of service of process defense (see, e.g., Glass v. Byrom, 146 Ga. App. 1 ( 245 SE2d 345 ) (1978)), we conclude that when considered as a whole, as the trial court did here, no other reasonable explanation of appellant's conduct in this case is possible. 1983While any one of the foregoing circumstances, in and of itself, might not be sufficient to support a finding that appellant had waived its insufficiency of service of process defense (see, e.g., Glass v. Byrom, 146 Ga. App. 1 ( 245 SE2d 345 ) (1978)), we conclude that when considered as a whole, as the trial court did here, no other reasonable explanation of appellant's conduct in this case is possible. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.