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 1922–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Ezorgreen1 sentence2022See Thompson, 272 Ga. at 852-853 (2). 10 including the basis therefor, by the person signing the report. . . .” [OCGA § 24-8-826 (a)]. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Austingreen2 sentences2006Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844, 845 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 569 ) (2005). 2006Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844, 845 (1) (a) ( 607 SE2d 569 ) (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Scroggins v. Stategreen1 sentence1979Affidavit is essential, and if the instrument treated by the court and the parties as an affidavit be void, there is no foundation for the proceedings; the whole trial is a nullity ...” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380, 382 (3) (1875); Martin v. State, 139 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 228 SE2d 15 ) (1976); Faulkner v. State, 146 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 (2) ( 247 SE2d 147 ) (1978). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Faulkner v. Stategreen2 sentences1979Affidavit is essential, and if the instrument treated by the court and the parties as an affidavit be void, there is no foundation for the proceedings; the whole trial is a nullity ...” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380, 382 (3) (1875); Martin v. State, 139 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 228 SE2d 15 ) (1976); Faulkner v. State, 146 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 (2) ( 247 SE2d 147 ) (1978). 2. 1979Affidavit is essential, and if the instrument treated by the court and the parties as an affidavit be void, there is no foundation for the proceedings; the whole trial is a nullity ...” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380, 382 (3) (1875); Martin v. State, 139 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 228 SE2d 15 ) (1976); Faulkner v. State, 146 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 (2) ( 247 SE2d 147 ) (1978). 2. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Again, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. [OCGA § 24-8-826] provides a specified exception to the hearsay rule and allows admission of medical opinions without requiring the production of the doctor as a sworn witness at trial. . . . [T]he statute authorizes the admission of such reports insofar as they consist of medical opinions relating to the “history, examination, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, or interpretation of tests or examinations, 5 We note that the self-contradictory testimony rule of Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 ( 343 SE2d 680 ) (1986 2022Again, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court. [OCGA § 24-8-826] provides a specified exception to the hearsay rule and allows admission of medical opinions without requiring the production of the doctor as a sworn witness at trial. . . . [T]he statute authorizes the admission of such reports insofar as they consist of medical opinions relating to the “history, examination, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, or interpretation of tests or examinations, 5 We note that the self-contradictory testimony rule of Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 ( 343 SE2d 680 ) (1986 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McGinty v. Interstate Land & Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences1980Co., 92 Ga. App. 770 (2) ( 90 SE2d 42 ) (1955). 1980Co., 92 Ga. App. 770 (2) ( 90 SE2d 42 ) (1955). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Martin v. State
green
2 sentences1979Affidavit is essential, and if the instrument treated by the court and the parties as an affidavit be void, there is no foundation for the proceedings; the whole trial is a nullity ...” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380, 382 (3) (1875); Martin v. State, 139 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 228 SE2d 15 ) (1976); Faulkner v. State, 146 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 (2) ( 247 SE2d 147 ) (1978). 2. 1979Affidavit is essential, and if the instrument treated by the court and the parties as an affidavit be void, there is no foundation for the proceedings; the whole trial is a nullity ...” Scroggins v. State, 55 Ga. 380, 382 (3) (1875); Martin v. State, 139 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 228 SE2d 15 ) (1976); Faulkner v. State, 146 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 (2) ( 247 SE2d 147 ) (1978). 2. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Brannan v. McWilliams
green
2 sentences1922Brannan v. McWilliams, 146 Ga. 528 ( 91 S. E. 772 ); 3 Stevens I. 1922Brannan v. McWilliams, 146 Ga. 528 ( 91 S. E. 772 ); 3 Stevens I. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.