infallible test (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

infallible test in Georgia

6 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1899–1960 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Chapman v. State green
ga · 1855
2 sentences

1960Willoughby.” Respecting this question, Judge Lump-kin, who delivered the opinion for this court in Chapman v. State, 18 Ga. 736 , said: “Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test.

1942And it is stated in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error “that our sole and only exception in this case is that the difference between the allegations and proof is fatal.” In Chapman v. State, 18 Ga. 736, 738 , the following ruling is found: “Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test.

41899–1960
Biggers v. State green
ga · 1899
1 sentence

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Graham v. State green
ga · 1899
1 sentence

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Lovett v. State green
gactapp · 1911
2 sentences

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Patterson v. State green
gactapp · 1925
1 sentence

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Chapman v. State neutral
gactapp · 1925
1 sentence

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Wilson v. State green
gactapp · 1942
2 sentences

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

1960Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis is and should always have been the true and only issue.” And the rule, as there stated, has been reannounced and followed in Biggers v. State, 109 Ga. 105 ( 34 S. E. 210 ); Lovett v. State, 9 Ga. App. 232 ( 70 S. E. 989 ); Chapman v. State, 33 Ga. App. 570 ( 126 S. E. 895 ); and Wilson v. State, 67 Ga. App. 404 ( 20 S. E. 2d 433 ).

11960–1960
Woody v. State neutral
ga · 1901
1 sentence

1930Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 ( 118 S. E. 601 ); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) ( 39 S. E. 297 ); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) ( 99 S. E. 630 ).

11930–1930
Webb v. State green
ga · 1919
2 sentences

1930Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 ( 118 S. E. 601 ); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) ( 39 S. E. 297 ); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) ( 99 S. E. 630 ).

1930Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 ( 118 S. E. 601 ); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) ( 39 S. E. 297 ); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) ( 99 S. E. 630 ).

11930–1930
Watkins v. State neutral
gactapp · 1916
2 sentences

1930In Watkins v. State, 18 Ga. App. 500 ( 89 S. E. 624 ), this court said: “Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test in settling the question of variance between allegata and probata.

1930In Watkins v. State, 18 Ga. App. 500 ( 89 S. E. 624 ), this court said: “Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test in settling the question of variance between allegata and probata.

11930–1930
Broadway Apartment Co. v. Barnett neutral
gactapp · 1923
1 sentence

1930Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 ( 118 S. E. 601 ); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) ( 39 S. E. 297 ); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) ( 99 S. E. 630 ).

11930–1930
Fielding v. State neutral
gactapp · 1923
1 sentence

1930Identitate personae and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” See Fielding v. State, 30 Ga. App. 664 ( 118 S. E. 601 ); Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 928 (1) ( 39 S. E. 297 ); Webb v. State, 149 Ga. 211 (1) ( 99 S. E. 630 ).

11930–1930
Ratteree v. State neutral
ga · 1875
1 sentence

1907Identitate personae, and not identitate nominis, is and should always have been the true and only issue.” So is the ruling made in Ratteree v. State, 53 Ga. 570 , where it was held: “When a juror’s name was A. J.

11907–1907
State v. Blankenship neutral
mo · 1855
1 sentence

1899In the 21 Mo. 504 , “Blackenship” was held to be idem sonans with “Blankenship.” In 18 Ill. 52 , “McInnis” was held to be idem sonans with “McGinnis.” In 2 Greene (Iowa), 88, “ Conly ” was held idem sonans with “ Conolly.” In the 18 Ga. 736 (Chapman v. State), it was held that “Hudson” was idem sonans with “Hutson.” In delivering the opinion in that case, Lumpkin, J., said : “ Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test.

11899–1899
Barnes v. People neutral
· 1856
1 sentence

1899In the 21 Mo. 504 , “Blackenship” was held to be idem sonans with “Blankenship.” In 18 Ill. 52 , “McInnis” was held to be idem sonans with “McGinnis.” In 2 Greene (Iowa), 88, “ Conly ” was held idem sonans with “ Conolly.” In the 18 Ga. 736 (Chapman v. State), it was held that “Hudson” was idem sonans with “Hutson.” In delivering the opinion in that case, Lumpkin, J., said : “ Idem sonans is no longer an infallible test.

11899–1899

Where else courts name it

IA 11 (1889–1979) PA 10 (1965–2024) SD 7 (1939–1999) CO 6 (1935–1989) GA 6 (1899–1960) OK 6 (1915–1983) TN 5 (1970–1981) MO 4 (1890–1971) MI 4 (1958–1979) CA 4 (1908–1947) NC 3 (1918–2020) KS 2 (1913–1975) MS 2 (1898–1930) TX 2 (1942–1950)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check