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 1910–1958 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Harris
green
2 sentences1958Co. v. Harris, 1 Ga. App. 714, 719 , 57 S. E. 1076, 1078 ), rather than the announcement of a general rule on the subject now under discussion.” For in the instant case there is direct evidence of basic facts and proof of circumstances sufficient to establish the hypothesis claimed. 1958Co. v. Harris, 1 Ga. App. 714, 719 , 57 S. E. 1076, 1078 ), rather than the announcement of a general rule on the subject now under discussion.” For in the instant case there is direct evidence of basic facts and proof of circumstances sufficient to establish the hypothesis claimed. | 2 | 1910–1958 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences1955However, Judge Powell took care of this statement, in his own inimitable way, in Lee v. State, 8 Ga. App. 413 ( 69 S. E. 310 ), where the court in effect stated that the statement in the Harris case was an application of the law of circumstantial evidence rather than the announcement of a general rule on the subject. 'Inferences may be based on facts whose determination is the result of other inferences, so long as the first inference is based on such evidence as to be regarded as a proved fact and the conclusion reached is not too remote.’ 31 C. 1955However, Judge Powell took care of this statement, in his own inimitable way, in Lee v. State, 8 Ga. App. 413 ( 69 S. E. 310 ), where the court in effect stated that the statement in the Harris case was an application of the law of circumstantial evidence rather than the announcement of a general rule on the subject. 'Inferences may be based on facts whose determination is the result of other inferences, so long as the first inference is based on such evidence as to be regarded as a proved fact and the conclusion reached is not too remote.’ 31 C. | 2 | 1950–1955 |
Gress v. Knight
neutral
1 sentence1914Gress v. Knight, 135 Ga. 60 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |