time of the alleged violation (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

time of the alleged violation in Georgia

5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2018 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Kimmelman v. Morrisongreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005“The reasonableness of counsel’s performance is to be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances. [Cit.]” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 384 (III) (A) (106 SC 2574, 91 LE2d 305) (1986).

11
Mullins v. Lavoiegreen
ga · 1982 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985Mullins v. Lavoie, 249 Ga. 411, 412 ( 290 SE2d 472 ) (1982).

1985Mullins v. Lavoie, 249 Ga. 411, 412 ( 290 SE2d 472 ) (1982).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Stewart v. State green
gactapp · 2007
2 sentences

2018Thus, to convict a defendant of violating this statute, the State must prove that the road on which the defendant was driving at the time of the alleged violation was, in fact, "divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic." See Stewart v. State , 288 Ga. App. 735 , 738 (3), 655 S.E.2d 328 (2007) (punctuation omitted).

2018Thus, to convict a defendant of violating this statute, the State must prove that the road on which the defendant was driving at the time of the alleged violation was, in fact, "divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic." See Stewart v. State , 288 Ga. App. 735 , 738 (3), 655 S.E.2d 328 (2007) (punctuation omitted).

12018–2018
Hinson v. Georgia State Board of Dental Examiners green
gactapp · 1975
2 sentences

2004In Hinson v. Ga. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 135 Ga. App. 488 ( 218 SE2d 162 ) (1975), we held that the intent of OCGA § 50-13-18 (c) is to give a licensee a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard where he can demonstrate that at the time of the alleged violation he was in full compliance with the law.

2004In Hinson v. Ga. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 135 Ga. App. 488 ( 218 SE2d 162 ) (1975), we held that the intent of OCGA § 50-13-18 (c) is to give a licensee a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard where he can demonstrate that at the time of the alleged violation he was in full compliance with the law.

12004–2004
Jackson v. Virginia red
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

1995Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 .

1995Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 .

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

TX 451 (1967–2026) OH 112 (1962–2025) WA 81 (1994–2026) IL 73 (1962–2026) FL 38 (1961–2026) TN 34 (1995–2015) MI 29 (1938–2026) SD 24 (1987–2019) OR 20 (1973–2024) CA 19 (1934–2023) MA 17 (1996–2025) NY 17 (1902–2022) NC 17 (1989–2025) MO 16 (1967–2025) AR 15 (1989–2025) HI 13 (1975–2025) PA 12 (1938–2025) NM 11 (1995–2019) AL 9 (1966–2025) ID 8 (1988–2023) UT 8 (2011–2025) MN 6 (1957–2016) ND 6 (1909–2026) WI 6 (1982–2026) IN 6 (1980–2020) SC 5 (1995–2020) NJ 5 (1974–2002) GA 5 (1985–2018) VT 5 (1991–2025) NV 5 (1998–2019) ME 5 (1994–2017) WY 4 (1995–2020) OK 4 (1977–2001) NE 4 (1999–2018) MD 3 (1985–2008) AZ 3 (1994–2018) MS 3 (1999–2006) DC 3 (2007–2011) KS 2 (1977–2021) LA 2 (1985–2006) IA 2 (1989–2023) VA 2 (1950–1967)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check