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 2014–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
LEJEUNE v. McLAUGHLINgreen2 sentences2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), 2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), | 3 | 3 |
Coley v. Stategreen2 sentences2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), 2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), | 2 | 3 |
Ringold v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Ringold v. State, 304 Ga. 875, 878 (823 SE2d 342) (2019) (explaining that “it is a fundamental principle that this Court is ‘bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States’” and that “‘[e]ven the venerable doctrine of stare decisis does not permit us to persist in an error of federal constitutional law’”) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). 23 constitutional rights “depends on the totality of the circumstances[,]” the Court continued on by saying that “the question of waiver must be analyzed 2023See, e.g., Ringold v. State, 304 Ga. 875, 878 (823 SE2d 342) (2019) (explaining that “it is a fundamental principle that this Court is ‘bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States’” and that “‘[e]ven the venerable doctrine of stare decisis does not permit us to persist in an error of federal constitutional law’”) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). 23 constitutional rights “depends on the totality of the circumstances[,]” the Court continued on by saying that “the question of waiver must be analyzed | 1 | 1 |
Morrow v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See the Appendix for a list of cases overruled in whole or in part by this opinion. 9 genesis in Morrow v. State, 266 Ga. 3, 3-4 ( 463 SE2d 472 ) (1995) (affirming the denial of a defendant’s motion for an out-of-time appeal from his conviction entered on a guilty plea). 2019See the Appendix for a list of cases overruled in whole or in part by this opinion. 9 genesis in Morrow v. State, 266 Ga. 3, 3-4 ( 463 SE2d 472 ) (1995) (affirming the denial of a defendant’s motion for an out-of-time appeal from his conviction entered on a guilty plea). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Hassgreen2 sentences2014See Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719 (II) ( 95 SCt 1215 , 43 LE2d 570) (1975) (on questions of federal constitutional law, state courts must adhere to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court). 2014See Oregon v. Hass, 420 U. S. 714, 719 (II) ( 95 SCt 1215 , 43 LE2d 570) (1975) (on questions of federal constitutional law, state courts must adhere to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
2 sentences2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), 2019However, the controlling authority here is Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470 , 476-477 (II) (A), 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), not Carter , supra. While this Court has decided many cases dealing with motions for out-of-time appeal, we must follow the instruction of the United States Supreme Court to analyze counsel's effectiveness under the Sixth Amendment, as it is a fundamental principle that this Court is "bound by the Constitution of the United States as its provisions are construed and applied by the Supreme Court of the United States." Coley v. State , 231 Ga. 829 , 832 (I), | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.