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 1994–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sabel v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Lock, Assistant *169 District Attorney, for appellee. *168 The State also asserts that, as a matter of logic and common sense, application of the Logan rule to cases such as this one is inconsistent with the holding in Sabel, supra, that [i]f the defendant does not call the expert as a witness, the state may call the defendant’s . . . [witness] without adding his or her name to the list of witnesses, or may argue to the jury that the defendant would have called the expert had the result of the testing been favorable to the defendant. 1994Lock, Assistant *169 District Attorney, for appellee. *168 The State also asserts that, as a matter of logic and common sense, application of the Logan rule to cases such as this one is inconsistent with the holding in Sabel, supra, that [i]f the defendant does not call the expert as a witness, the state may call the defendant’s . . . [witness] without adding his or her name to the list of witnesses, or may argue to the jury that the defendant would have called the expert had the result of the testing been favorable to the defendant. | 1 | 2 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Lewis v. State, 306 Ga. at 462-463 (4); Brooks v. State, 365 Ga. App. 711 , 721-723 (4) ( 880 SE2d 226 ) (2022). | 1 | 1 |
Zant v. Reddgreen2 sentences2024See generally Johnson, 361 Ga. App. at 49-51 (2); Thomas v. State, 356 Ga. App. 817 , 819- 820 ( 847 SE2d 662 ) (2020); see also Zant v. Redd, 249 Ga. 211, 213-214 (2) ( 290 SE2d 36 ) (1982). (b) Logan asserts that the trial court also erred by denying his plea in bar premised on the statute of limitations. 2024See generally Johnson, 361 Ga. App. at 49-51 (2); Thomas v. State, 356 Ga. App. 817 , 819- 820 ( 847 SE2d 662 ) (2020); see also Zant v. Redd, 249 Ga. 211, 213-214 (2) ( 290 SE2d 36 ) (1982). (b) Logan asserts that the trial court also erred by denying his plea in bar premised on the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Stategreen2 sentences2007All the Justices concur. 1 Henry v. State, 269 Ga. 851, 853 ( 507 SE2d 419 ) (1998). 2007All the Justices concur. 1 Henry v. State, 269 Ga. 851, 853 ( 507 SE2d 419 ) (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Heng v. Stategreen2 sentences2003“The conduct of voir dire is within the trial court’s sound discretion, which we will not disturb unless that discretion is abused.” (Citation omitted.) Heng v. State, 251 Ga. App. 274, 279 (4) ( 554 SE2d 243 ) (2001). 2003“The conduct of voir dire is within the trial court’s sound discretion, which we will not disturb unless that discretion is abused.” (Citation omitted.) Heng v. State, 251 Ga. App. 274, 279 (4) ( 554 SE2d 243 ) (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tolbert v. Murrell
green
1 sentence2022Id. (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.