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 1902–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cupe v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The investigator’s decision to approach the residence was authorized because viewing “objects within the plain view of an officer who is in a lawful position” to view them is not a Fourth Amendment violation, and the officer’s view of Bradford’s front yard from the street was not a violation of Bradford’s privacy.14 Further, [w]here a police officer enters upon private property only to the extent of knocking on outer doors, the Fourth Amendment is not violated. [And] if police utilize normal means of access to and egress from the house for some legitimate purpose, . . . [as they did here], it 2025The investigator’s decision to approach the residence was authorized because viewing “objects within the plain view of an officer who is in a lawful position” to view them is not a Fourth Amendment violation, and the officer’s view of Bradford’s front yard from the street was not a violation of Bradford’s privacy.14 Further, [w]here a police officer enters upon private property only to the extent of knocking on outer doors, the Fourth Amendment is not violated. [And] if police utilize normal means of access to and egress from the house for some legitimate purpose, . . . [as they did here], it | 1 | 1 |
Bale v. Toddgreen1 sentence2019Indeed, the only time the trial court mentions injunctive relief in its order is when it states that Broad Street “filed its complaint on November 25, 2015, seeking injunctive relief. . . .” Moreover, as discussed in Division 1, supra, our reading of the trial court’s order shows that its grant of Broad of is irreparable, or the interference is of a permanent or continuous character, or the remedy at law by an action for damages will not afford adequate relief, injunction is a proper remedy.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bale, 123 Ga. at 103 (5). 13 Street’s motion was based solely on a | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 ( 333 SE2d 827 ) (1985); compare Smith v. State, 207 Ga. App. 762 ( 429 SE2d 149 ) (1993). 1993See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 ( 333 SE2d 827 ) (1985); compare Smith v. State, 207 Ga. App. 762 ( 429 SE2d 149 ) (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Hubbard v. Stategreen2 sentences1993See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 ( 333 SE2d 827 ) (1985); compare Smith v. State, 207 Ga. App. 762 ( 429 SE2d 149 ) (1993). 1993See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga. 694 ( 333 SE2d 827 ) (1985); compare Smith v. State, 207 Ga. App. 762 ( 429 SE2d 149 ) (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2026Due Process Claim about Street’s Plea Deal Wells next claims that the State violated his right to due pro- cess under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 US 150 (1972), by concealing from the jury and the defense the favorable terms of Street’s plea deal. (a) Before trial, in 2021, Street agreed to a negotiated plea deal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Giglio v. United States
green
1 sentence2026Due Process Claim about Street’s Plea Deal Wells next claims that the State violated his right to due pro- cess under Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 US 150 (1972), by concealing from the jury and the defense the favorable terms of Street’s plea deal. (a) Before trial, in 2021, Street agreed to a negotiated plea deal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
City Council v. Burum & Co.
green
1 sentence1902This question has many times been passed upon by various courts, but has never been expressly decided by this court, though this court did, in City Council of Augusta v. Burum, 93 Ga. 68, 73 , in an action against a municipal corporation, say: “Although . . in Georgia the maxim ‘nullum tempus occurrit regi1 had been abrogated, we are quite certain that no statute of limitations or prescription of any kind could so operate as to abridge in any manner the exercise of the legitimate legislative powers of the State, conferred hy the people for the common welfare of all. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.