5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1977–1985 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bickford v. Nolengreen2 sentences1979Bickford v. Nolen, 240 Ga. 255 ( 240 SE2d 24 ) (1977); Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 ) (1921). 1979Bickford v. Nolen, 240 Ga. 255 ( 240 SE2d 24 ) (1977); Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 ) (1921). | 1 | 2 |
Rider v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1985See Rider v. Taylor, 166 Ga. App. 474 ( 304 SE2d 557 ) as to the applicability of the guest passenger rule to accidents occurring prior to November 1, 1982.) Decided January 14, 1985 Miles L. 1985See Rider v. Taylor, 166 Ga. App. 474 ( 304 SE2d 557 ) as to the applicability of the guest passenger rule to accidents occurring prior to November 1, 1982.) Decided January 14, 1985 Miles L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wells v. McMahon
green
2 sentences1985Held: Appellant Smith contends summary judgment was improper because the jury should have decided the question of gross negligence, which was the standard of liability for a driver under the guest passenger rule in effect when this accident occurred (Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 )). 1977We should remember that the guest-passenger rule was created by three judges of the Court of Appeals in 1921 in Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 ) (1921). | 3 | 1977–1985 |
Epps v. Parrish
green
2 sentences1985Held: Appellant Smith contends summary judgment was improper because the jury should have decided the question of gross negligence, which was the standard of liability for a driver under the guest passenger rule in effect when this accident occurred (Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 )). 1977We should remember that the guest-passenger rule was created by three judges of the Court of Appeals in 1921 in Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 ( 106 SE 297 ) (1921). | 3 | 1977–1985 |
Degenstein Ex Rel. Degenstein v. Ehrman
green
2 sentences1979Baldwin v. Hill, supra; Degenstein v. Ehrman, supra. Thus, the question presented is whether the owner of an automobile becomes the guest passenger by reason of the fact that another occupant in the automobile assumes the driving. 1979Baldwin v. Hill, supra; Degenstein v. Ehrman, supra. Thus, the question presented is whether the owner of an automobile becomes the guest passenger by reason of the fact that another occupant in the automobile assumes the driving. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Minkovitz v. Fine
green
2 sentences1977They are: (1) that the plaintiff mother was a guest passenger in the vehicle at the time she was injured and hence the duty of care owed her was only that of slight care and that the defendant had to be guilty of gross negligence in order to be found liable; (2) that the evidence failed to show an absence of slight care; (3) because the plaintiff mother was a guest passenger the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not obtain since it is not applicable in a situation where the plaintiff must show gross negligence, citing Minkovitz v. Fine, 67 Ga. App. 176 ( 19 SE2d 561 ); (4) since the evidence 1977They are: (1) that the plaintiff mother was a guest passenger in the vehicle at the time she was injured and hence the duty of care owed her was only that of slight care and that the defendant had to be guilty of gross negligence in order to be found liable; (2) that the evidence failed to show an absence of slight care; (3) because the plaintiff mother was a guest passenger the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would not obtain since it is not applicable in a situation where the plaintiff must show gross negligence, citing Minkovitz v. Fine, 67 Ga. App. 176 ( 19 SE2d 561 ); (4) since the evidence | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.