first opportunity challenge (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

first opportunity challenge in Georgia

5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2012 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Dearman v. Rhodengreen
ga · 1975 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009In order to change custody from one parent to the other, "[t]here must be a showing that the party to whom custody was originally awarded is no longer able or suited to retain custody or that the conditions and circumstances surrounding the child have so changed that the welfare of the child would be enhanced by modifying the original judgment." [Cit.] Dearman v. Rhoden, 235 Ga. 457, 458 (3), 219 S.E.2d 704 (1975) (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds, Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201 , 232 S.E.2d 76 (1977). [2] NOTES [1] The first opportunity to challenge the juvenile court orde

2009In order to change custody from one parent to the other, "[t]here must be a showing that the party to whom custody was originally awarded is no longer able or suited to retain custody or that the conditions and circumstances surrounding the child have so changed that the welfare of the child would be enhanced by modifying the original judgment." [Cit.] Dearman v. Rhoden, 235 Ga. 457, 458 (3), 219 S.E.2d 704 (1975) (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds, Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201 , 232 S.E.2d 76 (1977). [2] NOTES [1] The first opportunity to challenge the juvenile court orde

11
Price v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999Price v. State, 228 Ga. App. 155, 156 (1) ( 491 SE2d 210 ) (1997).

1999Price v. State, 228 Ga. App. 155, 156 (1) ( 491 SE2d 210 ) (1997).

11
Anderson v. ARAGUEL, SANDERS, &C.green
gactapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984
2 sentences

1984It can be argued . . . that this [was] the first opportunity for a hearing, but the recent changes in the workers’ compensation law do not require a hearing for the beginning of payments but require the employer/insurer to begin payments immediately unless controverted without an award under [OCGA § 34-9-221]; and a notice to controvert must be filed with the board within 60 days of the due date of the first payment of compensation ‘except upon the grounds of change in condition or newly discovered evidence.’ ” Anderson v. Araguel, Sanders &c., 163 Ga. App. 610, 612 ( 295 SE2d 750 ).

1984It can be argued . . . that this [was] the first opportunity for a hearing, but the recent changes in the workers’ compensation law do not require a hearing for the beginning of payments but require the employer/insurer to begin payments immediately unless controverted without an award under [OCGA § 34-9-221]; and a notice to controvert must be filed with the board within 60 days of the due date of the first payment of compensation ‘except upon the grounds of change in condition or newly discovered evidence.’ ” Anderson v. Araguel, Sanders &c., 163 Ga. App. 610, 612 ( 295 SE2d 750 ).

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
Jones v. State green
ga · 2012
2 sentences

2012“A constitutional attack on a sentencing statute, unlike a statute under which a criminal defendant is prosecuted, may be made after the guilty verdict is returned, as the first opportunity to challenge such a statute does not occur until after that time. [Cit.]” Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 670 (3) ( 725 SE2d 236 ) (2012).

2012“A constitutional attack on a sentencing statute, unlike a statute under which a criminal defendant is prosecuted, may be made after the guilty verdict is returned, as the first opportunity to challenge such a statute does not occur until after that time. [Cit.]” Jones v. State, 290 Ga. 670 (3) ( 725 SE2d 236 ) (2012).

12012–2012
Woods v. State green
ga · 2005
2 sentences

2012Woods v. State, 279 Ga. 28 -29 (1) ( 608 SE2d 631 ) (2005).

2012Woods v. State, 279 Ga. 28 -29 (1) ( 608 SE2d 631 ) (2005).

12012–2012
Matthews v. Matthews green
ga · 1977
2 sentences

2009In order to change custody from one parent to the other, "[t]here must be a showing that the party to whom custody was originally awarded is no longer able or suited to retain custody or that the conditions and circumstances surrounding the child have so changed that the welfare of the child would be enhanced by modifying the original judgment." [Cit.] Dearman v. Rhoden, 235 Ga. 457, 458 (3), 219 S.E.2d 704 (1975) (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds, Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201 , 232 S.E.2d 76 (1977). [2] NOTES [1] The first opportunity to challenge the juvenile court orde

2009In order to change custody from one parent to the other, "[t]here must be a showing that the party to whom custody was originally awarded is no longer able or suited to retain custody or that the conditions and circumstances surrounding the child have so changed that the welfare of the child would be enhanced by modifying the original judgment." [Cit.] Dearman v. Rhoden, 235 Ga. 457, 458 (3), 219 S.E.2d 704 (1975) (emphasis in original), overruled on other grounds, Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201 , 232 S.E.2d 76 (1977). [2] NOTES [1] The first opportunity to challenge the juvenile court orde

12009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

GA § 16-5-40 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 17 (1978–2018) VA 12 (1991–2026) GA 5 (1984–2012) ME 3 (1977–1997) CT 2 (2006–2009) AR 2 (1988–2009) MO 2 (1989–2021) TX 2 (2007–2021) UT 2 (1993–2017) TN 2 (2003–2004) IL 2 (1997–1997) KS 2 (2026–2026) MI 2 (2018–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check