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.
6 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2014Co., 324 Ga. App. 371, 374 ( 750 SE2d 697 ) (2013). 2014Co., 324 Ga. App. 371, 374 ( 750 SE2d 697 ) (2013). | 2 | 2 |
Albertson v. City of Jesupgreen2 sentences2014Whether the DOT is entitled to sovereign immunity from the suit on the basis of the design standards exception in OCGA § 50-21-24 (10), as asserted in the DOT’s motion to dismiss, “is a threshold issue that the trial court was required to address before reaching the merits of any other argument.” Albertson v. City of Jesup, 312 Ga. App. 246, 248 (1) ( 718 SE2d 4 ) (2011); Sadler v. Dept. of Transp., 311 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 716 SE2d 639 ) (2011); State Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indent. 2014Whether the DOT is entitled to sovereign immunity from the suit on the basis of the design standards exception in OCGA § 50-21-24 (10), as asserted in the DOT’s motion to dismiss, “is a threshold issue that the trial court was required to address before reaching the merits of any other argument.” Albertson v. City of Jesup, 312 Ga. App. 246, 248 (1) ( 718 SE2d 4 ) (2011); Sadler v. Dept. of Transp., 311 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 716 SE2d 639 ) (2011); State Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indent. | 2 | 2 |
Sadler v. Department of Transportation of Stategreen2 sentences2014Whether the DOT is entitled to sovereign immunity from the suit on the basis of the design standards exception in OCGA § 50-21-24 (10), as asserted in the DOT’s motion to dismiss, “is a threshold issue that the trial court was required to address before reaching the merits of any other argument.” Albertson v. City of Jesup, 312 Ga. App. 246, 248 (1) ( 718 SE2d 4 ) (2011); Sadler v. Dept. of Transp., 311 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 716 SE2d 639 ) (2011); State Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indent. 2014Whether the DOT is entitled to sovereign immunity from the suit on the basis of the design standards exception in OCGA § 50-21-24 (10), as asserted in the DOT’s motion to dismiss, “is a threshold issue that the trial court was required to address before reaching the merits of any other argument.” Albertson v. City of Jesup, 312 Ga. App. 246, 248 (1) ( 718 SE2d 4 ) (2011); Sadler v. Dept. of Transp., 311 Ga. App. 601, 603 ( 716 SE2d 639 ) (2011); State Dept. of Corrections v. Developers Surety & Indent. | 2 | 2 |
Department of Transportation v. Browngreen2 sentences2009Dept. of Transp. v. Brown, 267 Ga. 6, 8 (2), 471 S.E.2d 849 (1996). 2002The subsequent engineering traffic studies corroborated this opinion that DOT had been negligent in 1986 in failing to require a traffic control device at the intersection as demonstrated by the many collisions. *679 “[T]he trial court did not err in denying DOT’S motion for directed verdict on the question of whether DOT violated generally accepted engineering standards, thus removing it from the protection of the design standards exception.” Dept. of Transp. v. Brown, supra, 267 Ga. at 8 (2). | 2 | 2 |
Georgia Department of Transportation v. Hellergreen1 sentence2014The state could be liable under OCGA § 50-21-24 (10), the design standards exception, which provides, [t]he state shall have no liability for losses resulting from . . . [t]he plan or design for construction of or improvement to highways, roads, streets, bridges, or other public works where such plan or design is prepared in substantial compliance with generally accepted engineering or design standards in effect at the time of preparation of the plan or design. 7 The court concluded that “[b]ecause [the] second event[, the allegedly improper highway design,] leading to the loss [did] not fall | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Rome v. Jordan
green
2 sentences1996Finally, DOT asserts that our decision in City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26 ( 426 SE2d 861 ) (1993), requires the conclusion that, absent some special relation between DOT and the victim of its alleged negligence, it has no liability. 1996Finally, DOT asserts that our decision in City of Rome v. Jordan, 263 Ga. 26 ( 426 SE2d 861 ) (1993), requires the conclusion that, absent some special relation between DOT and the victim of its alleged negligence, it has no liability. | 1 | 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.