violation of the mandatory rule (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

violation of the mandatory rule in Georgia

6 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1946–1985 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Poultryland Inc. v. Andersongreen
ga · 1946 · cited in 4 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1962–1984
2 sentences

1984“It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to [appellant] because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549, 562 ( 37 SE2d 785 ) (1946).

1984“It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to [appellant] because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549, 562 ( 37 SE2d 785 ) (1946).

44
Henderson v. Stategreen
ga · 1983 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985Nevertheless, the State argues that the trial court’s failure to comply “with the technical commands of the statute” is not reversible error. “ ‘It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to the [appellant] because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears.’ [Cit.]” Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983).

1985Nevertheless, the State argues that the trial court’s failure to comply “with the technical commands of the statute” is not reversible error. “ ‘It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to the [appellant] because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears.’ [Cit.]” Henderson v. State, 251 Ga. 398, 403 ( 306 SE2d 645 ) (1983).

11

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Durham v. State green
gactapp · 1973
2 sentences

1983However, the decisions go both ways on who has the burden of showing that the error was harmful. 3 In the area of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the case of Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (3) ( 198 SE2d 387 ) (1973), puts the burden of showing harm on the appellant, 4 while Wallace v. *403 State, 164 Ga. App. 642 ( 298 SE2d 627 ) (1982), finds that after showing error, the appellant is under no burden to show prejudice. 5 Some of the cases express the rule thusly: “It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have result

1983However, the decisions go both ways on who has the burden of showing that the error was harmful. 3 In the area of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the case of Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (3) ( 198 SE2d 387 ) (1973), puts the burden of showing harm on the appellant, 4 while Wallace v. *403 State, 164 Ga. App. 642 ( 298 SE2d 627 ) (1982), finds that after showing error, the appellant is under no burden to show prejudice. 5 Some of the cases express the rule thusly: “It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have result

11983–1983
Hill v. Crowell neutral
ga · 1979
2 sentences

1983Applying Poultryland, supra, in another civil case, yet one related to voir dire, in Hill v. Crowell, 244 Ga. 294 (2) ( 260 SE2d 18 ) (1979), this court held: “Where a party in a civil case has been denied the right to an examination of jurors individually, the error is presumed to be harmful.” From the foregoing, we conclude that where a defendant in a criminal case has been deprived of his or her rights under OCGA § 15-12-133 (Code Ann. § 59-705) to examine prospective jurors on voir dire, the burden is on the state to show that the error was harmless.

1983Applying Poultryland, supra, in another civil case, yet one related to voir dire, in Hill v. Crowell, 244 Ga. 294 (2) ( 260 SE2d 18 ) (1979), this court held: “Where a party in a civil case has been denied the right to an examination of jurors individually, the error is presumed to be harmful.” From the foregoing, we conclude that where a defendant in a criminal case has been deprived of his or her rights under OCGA § 15-12-133 (Code Ann. § 59-705) to examine prospective jurors on voir dire, the burden is on the state to show that the error was harmless.

11983–1983
Wallace v. State green
gactapp · 1982
2 sentences

1983However, the decisions go both ways on who has the burden of showing that the error was harmful. 3 In the area of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the case of Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (3) ( 198 SE2d 387 ) (1973), puts the burden of showing harm on the appellant, 4 while Wallace v. *403 State, 164 Ga. App. 642 ( 298 SE2d 627 ) (1982), finds that after showing error, the appellant is under no burden to show prejudice. 5 Some of the cases express the rule thusly: “It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have result

1983However, the decisions go both ways on who has the burden of showing that the error was harmful. 3 In the area of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, the case of Durham v. State, 129 Ga. App. 5 (3) ( 198 SE2d 387 ) (1973), puts the burden of showing harm on the appellant, 4 while Wallace v. *403 State, 164 Ga. App. 642 ( 298 SE2d 627 ) (1982), finds that after showing error, the appellant is under no burden to show prejudice. 5 Some of the cases express the rule thusly: “It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have result

11983–1983
Montos v. State green
ga · 1956
2 sentences

1962It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to the defendants because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears.” Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549, 561, 562 ( 37 SE2d 785 ), and cases therein cited; Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 ( 95 SE2d 792 ).

1962It is no answer to the violation of the mandatory rule to say that the record does not show any harm to have resulted to the defendants because of this error, since it has been held in numerous cases that, whenever the rights of a party are withheld or violated, the presumption of law is that he has been injured unless the contrary plainly appears.” Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson, 200 Ga. 549, 561, 562 ( 37 SE2d 785 ), and cases therein cited; Montos v. State, 212 Ga. 764 ( 95 SE2d 792 ).

11962–1962
Battle v. Royster Guano Co. green
ga · 1923
2 sentences

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

11946–1946
Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb green
ga · 1934
2 sentences

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

11946–1946
Coleman v. Newsome neutral
ga · 1934
2 sentences

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

1946Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 2 (6); Battle v. Royster Guano Co., 155 Ga. 322 (3) ( 118 S. E. 343 ); Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (1, 2) ( 174 S. E. 131 ); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47 (174 S. E. 923); Stanley v. Warner Bros.

11946–1946

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check