5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1911–1985 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 |
|---|---|---|
McFarland v. Beardslygreen2 sentences1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). 1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See generally Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257 (1) ( 290 SE2d 911 ) (1982); Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127 (2) ( 232 SE2d 590 ), cert. den. sub nom. 1984See generally Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257 (1) ( 290 SE2d 911 ) (1982); Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127 (2) ( 232 SE2d 590 ), cert. den. sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen1 sentence1984Our review of the record discloses no violation by the State of the holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, 87 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greene v. Citizens & Southern Bank
green
2 sentences1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). 1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1985See McFarland v. Beardsly, 148 Ga. App. 645 (1) ( 252 SE2d 72 ) (1979); Image Seven, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 145 Ga. App. 33 ( 243 SE2d 602 ) (1978); Greene v. C & S Bank of Cobb County, 134 Ga. App. 73 ( 213 SE2d 175 ) (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Watts v. State
green
2 sentences1984See generally Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257 (1) ( 290 SE2d 911 ) (1982); Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127 (2) ( 232 SE2d 590 ), cert. den. sub nom. 1984See generally Hines v. State, 249 Ga. 257 (1) ( 290 SE2d 911 ) (1982); Watts v. State, 141 Ga. App. 127 (2) ( 232 SE2d 590 ), cert. den. sub nom. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Martin v. Crawford
green
1 sentence1946“Where a habeas corpus proceeding is brought by a person under sentence, it is the appropriate remedy only when the court is without jurisdiction in making the order, rendering the judgment, or passing sentence by virtue of which the party is imprisoned, so that such order, judgment, or sentence is not merely erroneous, but is absolutely void.” Stewart v. Sanders, 199 Ga. 497 (1) ( 34 S. E. 2d, 649 ). | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Kellam v. State
green
1 sentence1946“Where a habeas corpus proceeding is brought by a person under sentence, it is the appropriate remedy only when the court is without jurisdiction in making the order, rendering the judgment, or passing sentence by virtue of which the party is imprisoned, so that such order, judgment, or sentence is not merely erroneous, but is absolutely void.” Stewart v. Sanders, 199 Ga. 497 (1) ( 34 S. E. 2d, 649 ). | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Wright v. State
neutral
1 sentence1923The contention made in the brief for the defendant in the court below, that his alleged promise to pay the indebtedness arising under the original contract as made by the holder of the equitable title is unenforceable because not in writing, cannot be urged. “ The right to defend against a contract on the ground that it was within the statute of frauds and was not in writing is one of personal privilege, and unless the record discloses that this defense was raised in the trial court, it cannot be insisted upon in this court.” Shierling v. Richland Grocery Co., 9 Ga. App. 271 ( 70 S. E. 1126 ). | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Shierling Bros. v. Richland Grocery Co.
neutral
1 sentence1923The contention made in the brief for the defendant in the court below, that his alleged promise to pay the indebtedness arising under the original contract as made by the holder of the equitable title is unenforceable because not in writing, cannot be urged. “ The right to defend against a contract on the ground that it was within the statute of frauds and was not in writing is one of personal privilege, and unless the record discloses that this defense was raised in the trial court, it cannot be insisted upon in this court.” Shierling v. Richland Grocery Co., 9 Ga. App. 271 ( 70 S. E. 1126 ). | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Sayre & Co. v. Bailey
neutral
1 sentence1911Marks v. Talmadge, 8 Ga. App. 557 ( 69 S. E. 1131 ). 2. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Marks & Powell v. Talmadge's Sons & Co.
green
1 sentence1911Marks v. Talmadge, 8 Ga. App. 557 ( 69 S. E. 1131 ). 2. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.