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 1939–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tedesco v. CDC Federal Credit Uniongreen2 sentences2012Tedesco v. CDC Federal Credit Union, 167 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 306 SE2d 397 ) (1983) (physical precedent only); see Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132, 135 ( 115 SE2d 770 ) (1960) (Provisions in a note and a sales contract in which the defendant expressly waived the right to assert the defense of failure of consideration in an action on the contracts were valid and enforceable as there did not appear to be any danger of injury to others or any affect to the public interest by the waiver.). 9 In this case, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any basis to support a finding th 2012Tedesco v. CDC Federal Credit Union, 167 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 306 SE2d 397 ) (1983) (physical precedent only); see Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132, 135 ( 115 SE2d 770 ) (1960) (Provisions in a note and a sales contract in which the defendant expressly waived the right to assert the defense of failure of consideration in an action on the contracts were valid and enforceable as there did not appear to be any danger of injury to others or any affect to the public interest by the waiver.). 9 In this case, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any basis to support a finding th | 2 | 2 |
Young v. John Deere Plow Companygreen2 sentences2012Tedesco v. CDC Federal Credit Union, 167 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 306 SE2d 397 ) (1983) (physical precedent only); see Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132, 135 ( 115 SE2d 770 ) (1960) (Provisions in a note and a sales contract in which the defendant expressly waived the right to assert the defense of failure of consideration in an action on the contracts were valid and enforceable as there did not appear to be any danger of injury to others or any affect to the public interest by the waiver.). 9 In this case, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any basis to support a finding th 2012Tedesco v. CDC Federal Credit Union, 167 Ga. App. 337, 340 (2) ( 306 SE2d 397 ) (1983) (physical precedent only); see Young v. John Deere Plow Co., 102 Ga. App. 132, 135 ( 115 SE2d 770 ) (1960) (Provisions in a note and a sales contract in which the defendant expressly waived the right to assert the defense of failure of consideration in an action on the contracts were valid and enforceable as there did not appear to be any danger of injury to others or any affect to the public interest by the waiver.). 9 In this case, the defendants have failed to demonstrate any basis to support a finding th | 2 | 2 |
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Busbeegreen2 sentences2017This Court held in Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Busbee, 250 Ga. 252, 256-257 (2) ( 297 SE2d 250 ) (1982), that “[t]he ‘affected by a public interest’ test . . . applies only to price controls enacted by the legislature.” (Emphasis supplied.) The statute involved in this case is not a price control being implemented by the legislature to directly fix the prices at which health services may be rendered. 13 Decided October 16, 2017. 2017This Court held in Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Busbee, 250 Ga. 252, 256-257 (2) ( 297 SE2d 250 ) (1982), that “[t]he ‘affected by a public interest’ test . . . applies only to price controls enacted by the legislature.” (Emphasis supplied.) The statute involved in this case is not a price control being implemented by the legislature to directly fix the prices at which health services may be rendered. 13 Decided October 16, 2017. | 1 | 1 |
Georgia Hospital Ass'n v. Ledbettergreen2 sentences1991Assn. v. Ledbetter, 260 Ga. 477, 479 (5) ( 396 SE2d 488 ) (1990) concerning the public-interest exception in the context of open-records cases. 1991Assn. v. Ledbetter, 260 Ga. 477, 479 (5) ( 396 SE2d 488 ) (1990) concerning the public-interest exception in the context of open-records cases. | 1 | 1 |
Schlesinger v. City of Atlantagreen2 sentences1939In Schlesinger v. Atlanta, 161 Ga. 148, 158 ( 129 S. E. 861 ), i.t was said: “The right to use one’s own property as he sees fit, so long as he does not thereby injure others, and to engage in lawful occupations in proper places and at proper times, is a right which not even the legislative power of the State can take from the individual. 1939In Schlesinger v. Atlanta, 161 Ga. 148, 158 ( 129 S. E. 861 ), i.t was said: “The right to use one’s own property as he sees fit, so long as he does not thereby injure others, and to engage in lawful occupations in proper places and at proper times, is a right which not even the legislative power of the State can take from the individual. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.