5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cone v. Bellgreen2 sentences2018However, even if we were to assume that Lewis has demonstrated the favorability of the evidence at issue (and that the evidence was unavailable to him), he has failed to show that it was material to his guilt or punishment. "[E]vidence is 'material' within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Cone v. Bell , 556 U.S. 449 , 469-470, 129 S.Ct. 1769 , 173 L.Ed.2d 701 (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2018However, even if we were to assume that Lewis has demonstrated the favorability of the evidence at issue (and that the evidence was unavailable to him), he has failed to show that it was material to his guilt or punishment. "[E]vidence is 'material' within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Cone v. Bell , 556 U.S. 449 , 469-470, 129 S.Ct. 1769 , 173 L.Ed.2d 701 (2009) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Dixongreen1 sentence2012See In re Troutt, 460 F3d 887, 892-893 (II) (7th Cir. 2006) (remanding for another contempt hearing on procedural grounds and declining to address sufficiency of evidence); see also United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 697 (II) n.l (113 SC 2849, 125 LE2d 556) (1993) (“We have not held . . . that the double jeopardy guarantee applies to [summary contempt] proceedings.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Eric D. Trouttgreen1 sentence2012See In re Troutt, 460 F3d 887, 892-893 (II) (7th Cir. 2006) (remanding for another contempt hearing on procedural grounds and declining to address sufficiency of evidence); see also United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 697 (II) n.l (113 SC 2849, 125 LE2d 556) (1993) (“We have not held . . . that the double jeopardy guarantee applies to [summary contempt] proceedings.”). | 1 | 1 |
Meade v. Stategreen2 sentences1985See Meade v. State, 165 Ga. App. 556 ( 301 SE2d 912 ) (1983). (b) George also urges as error 1) the failure to give his specific written request to charge on entrapment and 2) the summary instruction given in conclusion by the trial court, which instruction made no reference to entrapment. 1985See Meade v. State, 165 Ga. App. 556 ( 301 SE2d 912 ) (1983). (b) George also urges as error 1) the failure to give his specific written request to charge on entrapment and 2) the summary instruction given in conclusion by the trial court, which instruction made no reference to entrapment. | 1 | 1 |
Lancaster v. Brandtgreen2 sentences1943Lancaster v. Brandt, 64 Ga. App. 429, 431 ( 13 S. E. 2d, 516 ). 1943Lancaster v. Brandt, 64 Ga. App. 429, 431 ( 13 S. E. 2d, 516 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.