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 2015–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2015Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U. S. 340, 351 ( 98 SCt 2380 , 57 LE2d 253) (1978) (citations and footnote omitted). 2015Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U. S. 340, 351 ( 98 SCt 2380 , 57 LE2d 253) (1978) (citations and footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Doyle, P. J., and Hodges, J., concur. the Eleventh Circuit, interpreting the federal rules[ ]”); Wammock v. Celotex Corp., 793 F2d 1518, 1521-1523 (II) (11th Cir. 1986) (discussing the analogous federal rule 613 (b) and the requirement that the witness be given the opportunity to explain the contradiction). 44 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 314 Ga. 605, 617 (5) ( 878 SE2d 505 ) (2022). 28 2025Doyle, P. J., and Hodges, J., concur. the Eleventh Circuit, interpreting the federal rules[ ]”); Wammock v. Celotex Corp., 793 F2d 1518, 1521-1523 (II) (11th Cir. 1986) (discussing the analogous federal rule 613 (b) and the requirement that the witness be given the opportunity to explain the contradiction). 44 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 314 Ga. 605, 617 (5) ( 878 SE2d 505 ) (2022). 28 | 1 | 1 |
Mixer v. Tarratine Marketgreen2 sentences2022And the plaintiffs’ assertion that Holder’s prior falls are inadmissible character evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404 (a) is misplaced, as evidence of one’s physical stability issues has nothing to do with one’s “character or a trait of character.” See 22B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure — Federal Rules of Evidence § 5233.2 (2d ed. Apr. 2022 update) (“A person’s physical characteristics do not qualify as ‘character.’”) (addressing the analogous federal rule of evidence); see also Mixer v. Tarrantine Mkt., 1999 ME 27 , 724 A2d 614, 616 (II) (Me. 1999) (“Evidence of a bala 2022And the plaintiffs’ assertion that Holder’s prior falls are inadmissible character evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404 (a) is misplaced, as evidence of one’s physical stability issues has nothing to do with one’s “character or a trait of character.” See 22B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure — Federal Rules of Evidence § 5233.2 (2d ed. Apr. 2022 update) (“A person’s physical characteristics do not qualify as ‘character.’”) (addressing the analogous federal rule of evidence); see also Mixer v. Tarrantine Mkt., 1999 ME 27 , 724 A2d 614, 616 (II) (Me. 1999) (“Evidence of a bala | 1 | 1 |
Dorsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) (844 SE2d 743) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) (814 SE2d 378) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version o 2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) ( 844 SE2d 743 ) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) ( 814 SE2d 378 ) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different versi | 1 | 1 |
Abney v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) (844 SE2d 743) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) (814 SE2d 378) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version o 2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) ( 844 SE2d 743 ) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) ( 814 SE2d 378 ) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different versi | 1 | 1 |
Glover v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) (844 SE2d 743) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) (814 SE2d 378) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version o 2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) (844 SE2d 743) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) (814 SE2d 378) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dorsey v. State
green
2 sentences2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) (844 SE2d 743) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) (814 SE2d 378) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version o 2021See Glover v. State, 309 Ga. 102, 108 (3) ( 844 SE2d 743 ) (2020) (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement made hours after shooting admissible where it rebutted defense’s implication of fabrication); Abney, 306 Ga. at 454 (detective’s testimony about witness’ statement admissible where statement made prior to motive to fabricate arose); Dorsey v. State, 303 Ga. 597, 603 (3) ( 814 SE2d 378 ) (2018) (no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different versi | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.