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 1982–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2003Co. v. Hodges, 164 Ga. App. 757, 759 (1) ( 298 SE2d 570 ) (1982) (subsection (d) is not a “statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions”). 2003Co. v. Hodges, 164 Ga. App. 757, 759 (1) ( 298 SE2d 570 ) (1982) (subsection (d) is not a “statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions”). | 3 | 3 |
Carpet Transport, Inc. v. Pittmangreen2 sentences2002Co. v. Hodges, 164 Ga. App. 757, 759 ( 298 SE2d 570 ) (1982) (subsection (d) is not a “statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions”). 187 Ga. App. at 467 . 1989While we agree that statutes of limitation are not applied retroactively (id.), OCGA § 34-9-221 (e), like subsection (d), “ ‘is not a statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions.’ [Cit.]” Carpet Transport v. Pittman, 187 Ga. App. 463, 466 ( 370 SE2d 651 ) (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Spiva v. Union Countygreen2 sentences2002See id. at 468 (overruling holding in Cagle’s, Inc. v. Kitchens, 172 Ga. App. 698 ( 324 SE2d 550 ) (1984), that subsection (h) is not a 60-day statute of limitation and reaffirming holding in Spiva v. Union County, 172 Ga. App. 151 ( 322 SE2d 351 ) (1984), that subsection (h) does establish a statute of limitation). 2002See id. at 468 (overruling holding in Cagle’s, Inc. v. Kitchens, 172 Ga. App. 698 ( 324 SE2d 550 ) (1984), that subsection (h) is not a 60-day statute of limitation and reaffirming holding in Spiva v. Union County, 172 Ga. App. 151 ( 322 SE2d 351 ) (1984), that subsection (h) does establish a statute of limitation). | 1 | 1 |
Cagle's, Inc. v. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2002See id. at 468 (overruling holding in Cagle’s, Inc. v. Kitchens, 172 Ga. App. 698 ( 324 SE2d 550 ) (1984), that subsection (h) is not a 60-day statute of limitation and reaffirming holding in Spiva v. Union County, 172 Ga. App. 151 ( 322 SE2d 351 ) (1984), that subsection (h) does establish a statute of limitation). 2002See id. at 468 (overruling holding in Cagle’s, Inc. v. Kitchens, 172 Ga. App. 698 ( 324 SE2d 550 ) (1984), that subsection (h) is not a 60-day statute of limitation and reaffirming holding in Spiva v. Union County, 172 Ga. App. 151 ( 322 SE2d 351 ) (1984), that subsection (h) does establish a statute of limitation). | 1 | 1 |
Raines & Milam v. Milamgreen2 sentences1982See also Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga. App. 860 ( 289 SE2d 785 ), holding that Code Ann. § 114-705, supra, is not a statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions. 1982See also Raines & Milam v. Milam, 161 Ga. App. 860 ( 289 SE2d 785 ), holding that Code Ann. § 114-705, supra, is not a statute of limitation, a statutory estoppel or bar to contest issues but one of sanctions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.