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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Nixongreen2 sentences1996Dean is being denied access to such records for use in a criminal trial, however, and “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 712 (94 SC 3090, 41 LE2d 1039) (1974). 1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function | 1 | 2 |
Stamps v. Knobloch (In Re City Communications, Ltd.)green1 sentence2005See, e.g., In re City Communications, 105 B.R. 1018, 1022 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See Buford v. State, 158 Ga. App. 763 (1) ( 282 SE2d 134 ) (1981) (holding that a federal regulation forbidding disclosure of departmental information must yield to a defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process). | 1 | 1 |
Buford v. Stategreen1 sentence1996See Buford v. State, 158 Ga. App. 763 (1) ( 282 SE2d 134 ) (1981) (holding that a federal regulation forbidding disclosure of departmental information must yield to a defendant’s constitutional right to compulsory process). | 1 | 1 |
Thornton v. Stategreen2 sentences1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function 1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boske v. Comingore
green
1 sentence1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Thornton v. State, 238 Ga. 160, 163-164 ( 231 SE2d 729 ); United States v. Nixon, supra, p. 1066 ; Roviaro v. United States, 353 U. S. 53 (77 SC 623, 1 LE2d 639); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1 (73 SC 528, 97 LE 727); Committee for Nuclear Responsibility v. Seaborg, supra; NLRB v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, 363 F2d 600; NLRB v. Capitol Fish Co., supra; Denny v. Carey, supra. In general, “the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Joice v. Scales
green
1 sentence1930Joice v. Scales, 18 Ga. 725 ; Sherman v. Bitting, 26 Ga. App. 299 (3) ( 105 S. E. 848 ); Ullman v. Magill and Padgett v. Silver Lake Park Corp., supra. There was no error in any of the rulings complained of. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Sherman & Sons Co. v. Bitting
green
2 sentences1930Joice v. Scales, 18 Ga. 725 ; Sherman v. Bitting, 26 Ga. App. 299 (3) ( 105 S. E. 848 ); Ullman v. Magill and Padgett v. Silver Lake Park Corp., supra. There was no error in any of the rulings complained of. 1930Joice v. Scales, 18 Ga. 725 ; Sherman v. Bitting, 26 Ga. App. 299 (3) ( 105 S. E. 848 ); Ullman v. Magill and Padgett v. Silver Lake Park Corp., supra. There was no error in any of the rulings complained of. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Morrow v. State
green
1 sentence1927In Hyer v. Holmes, 12 Ga. App. 848 (5) ( 79 S. E. 63 ), Chief Judge Russell said: “One of the amendments, to the allowance of which exception is taken, was presented after the conclusion of the evidence and argument. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.