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 1982–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Emory University v. Portergreen2 sentences1983Held: “The rule regarding the standard of care which applies to hospitals is found in Emory University v. Porter, 103 Ga. App. 752, 755 ( 120 SE2d 668 ) (1961): ‘A hospital owes to its patients only the duty of exercising ordinary care to furnish equipment and facilities reasonably suited to the uses intended and such as are in general use under the same, or similar, circumstances in hospitals in the area.’ We recognize that our courts have abandoned the ‘locality rule’ with regard to the standard of care applicable to physicians. [Cits.] However, we decline to follow appellants’ request to ab 1983Held: “The rule regarding the standard of care which applies to hospitals is found in Emory University v. Porter, 103 Ga. App. 752, 755 ( 120 SE2d 668 ) (1961): ‘A hospital owes to its patients only the duty of exercising ordinary care to furnish equipment and facilities reasonably suited to the uses intended and such as are in general use under the same, or similar, circumstances in hospitals in the area.’ We recognize that our courts have abandoned the ‘locality rule’ with regard to the standard of care applicable to physicians. [Cits.] However, we decline to follow appellants’ request to ab | 2 | 2 |
Murphy v. Littlegreen2 sentences1983Held: “The rule regarding the standard of care which applies to hospitals is found in Emory University v. Porter, 103 Ga. App. 752, 755 ( 120 SE2d 668 ) (1961): ‘A hospital owes to its patients only the duty of exercising ordinary care to furnish equipment and facilities reasonably suited to the uses intended and such as are in general use under the same, or similar, circumstances in hospitals in the area.’ We recognize that our courts have abandoned the ‘locality rule’ with regard to the standard of care applicable to physicians. [Cits.] However, we decline to follow appellants’ request to ab 1982See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 ( 145 SE2d 760 ) (1965); Hogan v. Almand, 131 Ga. App. 225, 228 ( 205 SE2d 440 ) (1974); Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 ( 270 SE2d 375 ) (1980). | 1 | 2 |
Deljoo v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.green2 sentences2013Although “it is essential that the description of the land in the conveyance should be reasonably certain and sufficient to enable subsequent purchasers to identify the premises intended to be conveyed; but while the description may be inaccurate, meager or erroneous, yet if it is expressed in such a manner or connected with such attendant circumstances as that a purchaser should be deemed to be put upon inquiry, if he fails to prosecute this inquiry he is chargeable with all the notice he might have obtained had he done so.” [Cit.] Deljoo v. SunTrust Mortgage, 284 Ga. 438, 439-440 ( 668 SE2d 2013Although “it is essential that the description of the land in the conveyance should be reasonably certain and sufficient to enable subsequent purchasers to identify the premises intended to be conveyed; but while the description may be inaccurate, meager or erroneous, yet if it is expressed in such a manner or connected with such attendant circumstances as that a purchaser should be deemed to be put upon inquiry, if he fails to prosecute this inquiry he is chargeable with all the notice he might have obtained had he done so.” [Cit.] Deljoo v. SunTrust Mortgage, 284 Ga. 438, 439-440 ( 668 SE2d | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colemangreen2 sentences1996We agree. “[T]he State of Georgia cannot control or know for certain what other states will do [in response to a refusal to submit to an alcohol test] . . . and the rule regarding warnings for out-of-state residents certainly should not depend on which foreign state the driver is from and how that state handles such situations.” State v. Coleman, 216 Ga. App. 598, 599 ( 455 SE2d 604 ) (1995). 1996We agree. “[T]he State of Georgia cannot control or know for certain what other states will do [in response to a refusal to submit to an alcohol test] . . . and the rule regarding warnings for out-of-state residents certainly should not depend on which foreign state the driver is from and how that state handles such situations.” State v. Coleman, 216 Ga. App. 598, 599 ( 455 SE2d 604 ) (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Hogan v. Almandgreen2 sentences1982See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 ( 145 SE2d 760 ) (1965); Hogan v. Almand, 131 Ga. App. 225, 228 ( 205 SE2d 440 ) (1974); Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 ( 270 SE2d 375 ) (1980). 1982See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 ( 145 SE2d 760 ) (1965); Hogan v. Almand, 131 Ga. App. 225, 228 ( 205 SE2d 440 ) (1974); Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 ( 270 SE2d 375 ) (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reich
green
2 sentences1995Thus, in accordance with Deckard , the officer's warning should include the limiting language "on the highways of this state." The dissent also suggests that since the home state may revoke the out-of-state resident's license after receiving notification of the Georgia offense, it actually may be inaccurate to limit the warning to "on the highways of this state." However, this potential problem is easily remedied by the insertion of the words "at least," so that nonresident drivers are informed that they will lose their driving privileges, "at least on the highways of this state," for six to t 1995Thus, in accordance with Deckard , the officer's warning should include the limiting language "on the highways of this state." The dissent also suggests that since the home state may revoke the out-of-state resident's license after receiving notification of the Georgia offense, it actually may be inaccurate to limit the warning to "on the highways of this state." However, this potential problem is easily remedied by the insertion of the words "at least," so that nonresident drivers are informed that they will lose their driving privileges, "at least on the highways of this state," for six to t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Anthony v. State
green
2 sentences1995Thus, in accordance with Deckard , the officer's warning should include the limiting language "on the highways of this state." The dissent also suggests that since the home state may revoke the out-of-state resident's license after receiving notification of the Georgia offense, it actually may be inaccurate to limit the warning to "on the highways of this state." However, this potential problem is easily remedied by the insertion of the words "at least," so that nonresident drivers are informed that they will lose their driving privileges, "at least on the highways of this state," for six to t 1995Thus, in accordance with Deckard , the officer's warning should include the limiting language "on the highways of this state." The dissent also suggests that since the home state may revoke the out-of-state resident's license after receiving notification of the Georgia offense, it actually may be inaccurate to limit the warning to "on the highways of this state." However, this potential problem is easily remedied by the insertion of the words "at least," so that nonresident drivers are informed that they will lose their driving privileges, "at least on the highways of this state," for six to t | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Southern Railway Co. v. Brooks
green
1 sentence1983Held: “The rule regarding the standard of care which applies to hospitals is found in Emory University v. Porter, 103 Ga. App. 752, 755 ( 120 SE2d 668 ) (1961): ‘A hospital owes to its patients only the duty of exercising ordinary care to furnish equipment and facilities reasonably suited to the uses intended and such as are in general use under the same, or similar, circumstances in hospitals in the area.’ We recognize that our courts have abandoned the ‘locality rule’ with regard to the standard of care applicable to physicians. [Cits.] However, we decline to follow appellants’ request to ab | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Fain v. Moore
green
2 sentences1982See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 ( 145 SE2d 760 ) (1965); Hogan v. Almand, 131 Ga. App. 225, 228 ( 205 SE2d 440 ) (1974); Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 ( 270 SE2d 375 ) (1980). 1982See Murphy v. Little, 112 Ga. App. 517 ( 145 SE2d 760 ) (1965); Hogan v. Almand, 131 Ga. App. 225, 228 ( 205 SE2d 440 ) (1974); Fain v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 209 ( 270 SE2d 375 ) (1980). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.