5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC v. WALDENgreen2 sentences2019See Chrysler Group , 303 Ga. at 365 -366 , 812 S.E.2d 244 ("[B]ecause there is no specific exclusionary rule in the new Evidence Code carrying forward the common law's general exclusionary rule for that type of evidence, Georgia courts must consider party-wealth evidence under the parameters of the new Evidence Code."). 2019See Chrysler Group, 303 Ga. at 365-366 (“[B]ecause there is no specific exclusionary rule in the new Evidence Code carrying forward the common law’s general exclusionary rule for that type of evidence, Georgia courts must consider party-wealth evidence under the parameters of the new Evidence Code.”). | 2 | 2 |
CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION v. Davisgreen2 sentences1997The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.' Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Davis, [ 226 Ga. 221, 224-225 , 173 S.E.2d 691 (1970) ]. 1997The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.' Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Davis, [ 226 Ga. 221, 224-225 , 173 S.E.2d 691 (1970) ]. | 1 | 2 |
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Waldengreen1 sentence2019See Chrysler Group , 303 Ga. at 365 -366 , 812 S.E.2d 244 ("[B]ecause there is no specific exclusionary rule in the new Evidence Code carrying forward the common law's general exclusionary rule for that type of evidence, Georgia courts must consider party-wealth evidence under the parameters of the new Evidence Code."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Truitt v. Truitt's Adm'r
green
2 sentences1970The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.” 29 AmJur2d 674, 675, Evidence, § 621, citing Toney v. Raines, 224 Ark. 692 ( 275 SW2d 771 ); Truitt v. Truitt, 290 Ky. 632 ( 162 SW2d 31 , 140 ALR 1127 ); Winter v. Gani (La. 1970The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.” 29 AmJur2d 674, 675, Evidence, § 621, citing Toney v. Raines, 224 Ark. 692 ( 275 SW2d 771 ); Truitt v. Truitt, 290 Ky. 632 ( 162 SW2d 31 , 140 ALR 1127 ); Winter v. Gani (La. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Toney v. Raines
green
2 sentences1970The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.” 29 AmJur2d 674, 675, Evidence, § 621, citing Toney v. Raines, 224 Ark. 692 ( 275 SW2d 771 ); Truitt v. Truitt, 290 Ky. 632 ( 162 SW2d 31 , 140 ALR 1127 ); Winter v. Gani (La. 1970The fact that the declarant has since died does not alter the general exclusionary rule.” 29 AmJur2d 674, 675, Evidence, § 621, citing Toney v. Raines, 224 Ark. 692 ( 275 SW2d 771 ); Truitt v. Truitt, 290 Ky. 632 ( 162 SW2d 31 , 140 ALR 1127 ); Winter v. Gani (La. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. Wilder
green
1 sentence1970App.) 199 S. 600; Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wilder, 225 N. C. 114 ( 120 SE2d 404 ). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.