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 1958–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Green Bull Georgia Partners, LLC v. Registergreen2 sentences2026See Green Bull Ga. Partners v. Register, 301 Ga. 472, 474-475 ( 801 SE2d 843 ) (2017) (affirming both the trial court’s setting aside of an interlocutory injunction 4 Shortly after docketing in this Court, we denied the Railroad’s motion to expedite the appeals and to lift the stay because “the [Railroad] has not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances that might justify” either remedy. 13 and its entry of an injunction pending the resolution of an appeal as within its discretion; “that the trial court found the case close enough to warrant an injunction pending appeal – notwithstan 2026See Green Bull Ga. Partners v. Register, 301 Ga. 472, 474-475 ( 801 SE2d 843 ) (2017) (affirming both the trial court’s setting aside of an interlocutory injunction 4 Shortly after docketing in this Court, we denied the Railroad’s motion to expedite the appeals and to lift the stay because “the [Railroad] has not shown the existence of extraordinary circumstances that might justify” either remedy. 13 and its entry of an injunction pending the resolution of an appeal as within its discretion; “that the trial court found the case close enough to warrant an injunction pending appeal – notwithstan | 1 | 1 |
Bowles v. CSX Transportation, Inc.green1 sentence2020See generally Bowles, supra at 7 (1). 8 2. | 1 | 1 |
Durkin v. Pet Milk Co.green1 sentence1967At least one case has been found wherein it was held that statements taken by the defendant’s attorney himself were not exempt from discovery under Rule 34. as being “attorney’s work product.” See Durkin v. Pet Milk Co., 14 F.R.D. 385, 391 (6). | 1 | 1 |
Bass v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.green2 sentences1958Co., 205 Ga. 458, 471 ( 53 S. E. 2d 895 ): “Here the'alleged negligence of the railroad is its violation of the law enacted for the safety of the employee in respect to efficient hand brakes, and in these circumstances the proviso in § 53 [Federal Safety Appliance Act (45 U.S.C.A.)], comes into operation. 1958Co., 205 Ga. 458, 471 ( 53 S. E. 2d 895 ): “Here the'alleged negligence of the railroad is its violation of the law enacted for the safety of the employee in respect to efficient hand brakes, and in these circumstances the proviso in § 53 [Federal Safety Appliance Act (45 U.S.C.A.)], comes into operation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnston v. Bill Fancher & Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 69 . 2. 1988Id. at 69 . 2. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.