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 1981–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016State, 294 Ga. 34, 36-37 (2) ( 751 SE2d 63 ) (2013), and Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252, 257-258 (7) ( 244 SE2d 833 ) (1978). 2016State, 294 Ga. 34, 36-37 (2) ( 751 SE2d 63 ) (2013), and Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252, 257-258 (7) ( 244 SE2d 833 ) (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Perera v. Stategreen2 sentences2016(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Perera v. State, 295 Ga. 880, 885-886 (3) (d) ( 763 SE2d 687 ) (2014), cert. denied, Perera v. Georgia, _ U. S. _ ( 136 SCt 123 , 193 LE2d 96) (2015). 2016(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Perera v. State, 295 Ga. 880, 885-886 (3) (d) ( 763 SE2d 687 ) (2014), cert. denied, Perera v. Georgia, _ U. S. _ ( 136 SCt 123 , 193 LE2d 96) (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Milinavicius v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 13 See generally Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374, 377 (4) ( 721 SE2d 843 ) (2012) (appellant’s allegation that trial court gave erroneous jury charge on justified use of force was without merit where the charge as a whole was not an incorrect statement of the law and fairly represented the issue of justification); Arsenault v. State, 257 Ga. App. 456, 457 (2) ( 571 SE2d 456 ) (2002) (where defendant raised an affirmative defense of justification and testified to the same, the state bore the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt) 2013Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 13 See generally Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374, 377 (4) ( 721 SE2d 843 ) (2012) (appellant’s allegation that trial court gave erroneous jury charge on justified use of force was without merit where the charge as a whole was not an incorrect statement of the law and fairly represented the issue of justification); Arsenault v. State, 257 Ga. App. 456, 457 (2) ( 571 SE2d 456 ) (2002) (where defendant raised an affirmative defense of justification and testified to the same, the state bore the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt) | 1 | 1 |
Hoffler v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Once an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond 11 See OCGA § 16-3-21 (a). 12 Terry, supra at 510 (2) (a); see generally Hoffler, supra. 8 a reasonable doubt.” The court then explained justification, and further instructed the jury: “The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.” These were correct statements of the law.13 The court made no error in its jury charge, and Ferguson’s claim cannot make it past the first prong of the plain error review.14 Judgment affirmed. 2013Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 13 See generally Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374, 377 (4) ( 721 SE2d 843 ) (2012) (appellant’s allegation that trial court gave erroneous jury charge on justified use of force was without merit where the charge as a whole was not an incorrect statement of the law and fairly represented the issue of justification); Arsenault v. State, 257 Ga. App. 456, 457 (2) ( 571 SE2d 456 ) (2002) (where defendant raised an affirmative defense of justification and testified to the same, the state bore the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt) | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Once an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the State to disprove it beyond 11 See OCGA § 16-3-21 (a). 12 Terry, supra at 510 (2) (a); see generally Hoffler, supra. 8 a reasonable doubt.” The court then explained justification, and further instructed the jury: “The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.” These were correct statements of the law.13 The court made no error in its jury charge, and Ferguson’s claim cannot make it past the first prong of the plain error review.14 Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Arsenault v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 13 See generally Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374, 377 (4) ( 721 SE2d 843 ) (2012) (appellant’s allegation that trial court gave erroneous jury charge on justified use of force was without merit where the charge as a whole was not an incorrect statement of the law and fairly represented the issue of justification); Arsenault v. State, 257 Ga. App. 456, 457 (2) ( 571 SE2d 456 ) (2002) (where defendant raised an affirmative defense of justification and testified to the same, the state bore the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt) 2013Ellington, P. J., and Branch, J., concur. 13 See generally Milinavicius v. State, 290 Ga. 374, 377 (4) ( 721 SE2d 843 ) (2012) (appellant’s allegation that trial court gave erroneous jury charge on justified use of force was without merit where the charge as a whole was not an incorrect statement of the law and fairly represented the issue of justification); Arsenault v. State, 257 Ga. App. 456, 457 (2) ( 571 SE2d 456 ) (2002) (where defendant raised an affirmative defense of justification and testified to the same, the state bore the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt) | 1 | 1 |
Ferguson v. Bishopgreen1 sentence1981See Ferguson v. Bishop, 150 Ga. App. 469, 472 , supra. Summary judgment in favor of Atlantic, as to the plaintiff Ferguson’s claim in the two cases, became final after the appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rivers v. United States
neutral
1 sentence2016(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Perera v. State, 295 Ga. 880, 885-886 (3) (d) ( 763 SE2d 687 ) (2014), cert. denied, Perera v. Georgia, _ U. S. _ ( 136 SCt 123 , 193 LE2d 96) (2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences2016State, 294 Ga. 34, 36-37 (2) ( 751 SE2d 63 ) (2013), and Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252, 257-258 (7) ( 244 SE2d 833 ) (1978). 2016State, 294 Ga. 34, 36-37 (2) ( 751 SE2d 63 ) (2013), and Hall v. State, 241 Ga. 252, 257-258 (7) ( 244 SE2d 833 ) (1978). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2008Citing no legal authority save OCGA § 17-5-21 (a) and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984), he argues that because the search warrant named the package itself and not his automobile, officers were required to execute the warrant before he entered his car. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2006The record was docketed in this Court on March 16, 2006, and on May 8, 2006, the case was submitted for decision on briefs. 2 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Yost v. Torok
green
2 sentences1988Both defendants counterclaimed pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 and Yost v. Torok, 256 Ga. 92 ( 344 SE2d 414 ) (1986), based on allegations that Ferguson's claim was substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious. 1988Both defendants counterclaimed pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 and Yost v. Torok, 256 Ga. 92 ( 344 SE2d 414 ) (1986), based on allegations that Ferguson's claim was substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, and substantially vexatious. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.