5 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Ruger v. State, 263 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (c) (436 SE2d 485) (1993) (affirming denial of motion for new trial based on expert opinion that method employed by State’s expert in conducting experiment about bloodprints was “scientifically unsound”; new opinion “tendered to disprove the facts on which the [testimony of the State’s expert] was founded”); Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62, 71 (9) (190 SE 663) (1937) (rejecting expert affidavit challenging State’s testimony about substance found on pipes near defendant’s workplace as basis for 20 new trial, as it was “impeaching”). 4 Rejecting a motion purp 2022See Ruger v. State, 263 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (c) (436 SE2d 485) (1993) (affirming denial of motion for new trial based on expert opinion that method employed by State’s expert in conducting experiment about bloodprints was “scientifically unsound”; new opinion “tendered to disprove the facts on which the [testimony of the State’s expert] was founded”); Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62, 71 (9) (190 SE 663) (1937) (rejecting expert affidavit challenging State’s testimony about substance found on pipes near defendant’s workplace as basis for 20 new trial, as it was “impeaching”). 4 Rejecting a motion purp | 1 | 1 |
Ruger v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Ruger v. State, 263 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (c) (436 SE2d 485) (1993) (affirming denial of motion for new trial based on expert opinion that method employed by State’s expert in conducting experiment about bloodprints was “scientifically unsound”; new opinion “tendered to disprove the facts on which the [testimony of the State’s expert] was founded”); Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62, 71 (9) (190 SE 663) (1937) (rejecting expert affidavit challenging State’s testimony about substance found on pipes near defendant’s workplace as basis for 20 new trial, as it was “impeaching”). 4 Rejecting a motion purp 2022See Ruger v. State, 263 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (c) (436 SE2d 485) (1993) (affirming denial of motion for new trial based on expert opinion that method employed by State’s expert in conducting experiment about bloodprints was “scientifically unsound”; new opinion “tendered to disprove the facts on which the [testimony of the State’s expert] was founded”); Wright v. State, 184 Ga. 62, 71 (9) (190 SE 663) (1937) (rejecting expert affidavit challenging State’s testimony about substance found on pipes near defendant’s workplace as basis for 20 new trial, as it was “impeaching”). 4 Rejecting a motion purp | 1 | 1 |
Dick v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See also Dick v. State, 248 Ga. 898, 899-900 (2) ( 287 SE2d 11 ) (1982) (applying Timberlake factors to extraordinary motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). 2020See also Dick v. State, 248 Ga. 898, 899-900 (2) ( 287 SE2d 11 ) (1982) (applying Timberlake factors to extraordinary motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438, 446 (3) (D) ( 660 SE2d 354 ) (2008) (no abuse of discretion in finding that appellant failed to satisfy Timberlake standard where witness with purportedly new evidence was “readily identifiable” before appellant’s trial). 2020See Davis v. State, 283 Ga. 438, 446 (3) (D) ( 660 SE2d 354 ) (2008) (no abuse of discretion in finding that appellant failed to satisfy Timberlake standard where witness with purportedly new evidence was “readily identifiable” before appellant’s trial). | 1 | 1 |
Walton v. Datrygreen2 sentences1991Relying on Wyse v. Potamkin Chrysler-Plymouth, 189 Ga. App. 64, 65 ( 374 SE2d 785 ) and Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 93 ( 363 SE2d 295 ), Randall contends the trial court should have considered her response to Timberlake’s motion for summary judgment even though it was not filed in accordance with Rule 6.2 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts. 1991Relying on Wyse v. Potamkin Chrysler-Plymouth, 189 Ga. App. 64, 65 ( 374 SE2d 785 ) and Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 93 ( 363 SE2d 295 ), Randall contends the trial court should have considered her response to Timberlake’s motion for summary judgment even though it was not filed in accordance with Rule 6.2 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts. | 1 | 1 |
Wyse v. Potamkin Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences1991Relying on Wyse v. Potamkin Chrysler-Plymouth, 189 Ga. App. 64, 65 ( 374 SE2d 785 ) and Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 93 ( 363 SE2d 295 ), Randall contends the trial court should have considered her response to Timberlake’s motion for summary judgment even though it was not filed in accordance with Rule 6.2 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts. 1991Relying on Wyse v. Potamkin Chrysler-Plymouth, 189 Ga. App. 64, 65 ( 374 SE2d 785 ) and Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 93 ( 363 SE2d 295 ), Randall contends the trial court should have considered her response to Timberlake’s motion for summary judgment even though it was not filed in accordance with Rule 6.2 of the Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences2022In State v. Gates, we affirmed the grant of an extraordinary motion for new trial based on analysis of DNA evidence through the TrueAllele software, which was not available 4In Rogers v. State, 257 Ga. 590 (361 SE2d 814) (1987), relied on in Ruger, we concluded that the affidavit of a pathologist who challenged various aspects of the State’s expert testimony failed to satisfy the Timberlake standard, but we didn’t say why. 2022In State v. Gates, we affirmed the grant of an extraordinary motion for new trial based on analysis of DNA evidence through the TrueAllele software, which was not available 4In Rogers v. State, 257 Ga. 590 (361 SE2d 814) (1987), relied on in Ruger, we concluded that the affidavit of a pathologist who challenged various aspects of the State’s expert testimony failed to satisfy the Timberlake standard, but we didn’t say why. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Timberlake v. State
green
2 sentences2015In Bharadia I, the Court of Appeals, in 2006, affirmed the trial court in an opinion 1 246 Ga. 488 ( 271 SE2d 792 ) (1980). 2015In Bharadia I, the Court of Appeals, in 2006, affirmed the trial court in an opinion 1 246 Ga. 488 ( 271 SE2d 792 ) (1980). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.