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 1 courts 2007–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) (651 SE2d 718) 19 (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.”) Accord Davis v. State, 2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) (651 SE2d 718) 19 (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.”) Accord Davis v. State, | 3 | 3 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) (651 SE2d 718) 19 (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.”) Accord Davis v. State, 2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) (651 SE2d 718) 19 (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.”) Accord Davis v. State, | 3 | 3 |
Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Louisiana Forum Corp.green2 sentences2007Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege embodied in OCGA § 24-9-24 has been confined “to its narrowest permissible limits.” Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Louisiana Forum Corp., 273 Ga. 206, 207-208 (1) ( 538 SE2d 441 ) (2000). 2007Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege embodied in OCGA § 24-9-24 has been confined “to its narrowest permissible limits.” Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. Louisiana Forum Corp., 273 Ga. 206, 207-208 (1) ( 538 SE2d 441 ) (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Rogers v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) (651 SE2d 718) 19 (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.”) Accord Davis v. State, 2024See also Rogers, 290 Ga. at 20 (2) (quoting Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 636 (4) ( 651 SE2d 718 ) (2007)) (“Indeed, the statutes outlining the attorney-client privilege are not broadly construed; the attorney-client privilege . . . has been confined to its narrowest permissible limits,” and “[i]nasmuch as the exercise of the privilege results in the exclusion of evidence, a narrow construction of the privilege comports with the view that the ascertainment of as many facts as possible leads to the truth, the discovery of which is the object of all legal investigation.” (punctuation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||