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 1 courts 1971–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) ( 816 SE2d 646 ) (2018) (“Appellant claims that his convictions are void because the record does not show that his indictment was returned in open court.”); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) ( 816 SE2d 646 ) (2018) (“Appellant claims that his convictions are void because the record does not show that his indictment was returned in open court.”); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) ( 816 SE2d 646 ) (2018) (“Appellant claims that his convictions are void because the record does not show that his indictment was returned in open court.”); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). 2020See Thompson v. State, 304 Ga. 146, 149 (3) ( 816 SE2d 646 ) (2018) (“Appellant claims that his convictions are void because the record does not show that his indictment was returned in open court.”); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 494 (2) ( 659 SE2d 875 ) (2008) (holding that attacks on the indictment are essentially attempts to have the judgment of conviction vacated). | 1 | 1 |
Slade v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Slade, 287 Ga. App. at 35 (1). | 1 | 1 |
Whitton v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Whitton v. State, 178 Ga. App. 862, 865 (1) ( 344 SE2d 703 ) (1986); Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga. App. 398, 400 (6) ( 283 SE2d 627 ) (1981). 1997Whitton v. State, 178 Ga. App. 862, 865 (1) ( 344 SE2d 703 ) (1986); Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga. App. 398, 400 (6) ( 283 SE2d 627 ) (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Whitfield v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Whitton v. State, 178 Ga. App. 862, 865 (1) ( 344 SE2d 703 ) (1986); Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga. App. 398, 400 (6) ( 283 SE2d 627 ) (1981). 1997Whitton v. State, 178 Ga. App. 862, 865 (1) ( 344 SE2d 703 ) (1986); Whitfield v. State, 159 Ga. App. 398, 400 (6) ( 283 SE2d 627 ) (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Register v. Stone's Independent Oil Distributors, Inc.green2 sentences1971See Register v. Stone’s Independent Oil Distributors, 227 Ga. 123 ( 179 SE2d 68 ). 1971See Register v. Stone’s Independent Oil Distributors, 227 Ga. 123 ( 179 SE2d 68 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tidwell v. HINTON & POWELL
neutral
2 sentences2013In Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell,1 we reversed the trial court’s partial grant of Hinton & Powell’s motion in limine to exclude expert witness testimony on the ground that the trial court erred as a matter of law by excluding the testimony without first evaluating whether such testimony would assist the jury on matters of the amount of damages that were the proximate cause of any legal malpractice if those matters were outside the ken of the normal juror.2 In Hinton & Powell v. Tidwell,3 the Georgia Supreme Court remanded our decision for consideration of its interim decision in 1 315 Ga. App. 15 2013In Tidwell v. Hinton & Powell,1 we reversed the trial court’s partial grant of Hinton & Powell’s motion in limine to exclude expert witness testimony on the ground that the trial court erred as a matter of law by excluding the testimony without first evaluating whether such testimony would assist the jury on matters of the amount of damages that were the proximate cause of any legal malpractice if those matters were outside the ken of the normal juror.2 In Hinton & Powell v. Tidwell,3 the Georgia Supreme Court remanded our decision for consideration of its interim decision in 1 315 Ga. App. 15 | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.