42 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1888–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Georgia Power Co. v. Maddoxgreen2 sentences1992The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed to cure the error.” Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 ) (1966). 1992The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed to cure the error.” Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 ) (1966). | 1 | 8 |
Jones v. Zezzogreen2 sentences2024See Hansford v. Veal, 369 Ga. App. 641 , 644 (1) ( 894 SE2d 215 ) 10 (2023) (“A party who has had a default judgment entered against it as a discovery sanction has forfeited the right to argue that the complaint against that party is inadequately pled.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Jones v. Zezzo, 162 Ga. App. 281, 283 ( 290 SE2d 312 ) (1982) (“By his wilful contempt of the orders of discovery of two judges, appellant has as a sanction suffered a default judgment and thereby forfeited any claim that the cross complaint fails to state a cause of action.”). 2024See Hansford v. Veal, 369 Ga. App. 641 , 644 (1) ( 894 SE2d 215 ) 10 (2023) (“A party who has had a default judgment entered against it as a discovery sanction has forfeited the right to argue that the complaint against that party is inadequately pled.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Jones v. Zezzo, 162 Ga. App. 281, 283 ( 290 SE2d 312 ) (1982) (“By his wilful contempt of the orders of discovery of two judges, appellant has as a sanction suffered a default judgment and thereby forfeited any claim that the cross complaint fails to state a cause of action.”). | 1 | 1 |
Wallin v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Wallin v. State, 248 Ga. 29, 30 , 279 S.E.2d 687 (1981). 2002Wallin v. State, 248 Ga. 29, 30 , 279 S.E.2d 687 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Moreover, the trial court did not rule specifically on this constitutional challenge, Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 , 91 S.E.2d 16 (1955), and appellant failed to articulate the grounds for his challenge before both the trial court and this Court. 2002Moreover, the trial court did not rule specifically on this constitutional challenge, Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 , 91 S.E.2d 16 (1955), and appellant failed to articulate the grounds for his challenge before both the trial court and this Court. | 1 | 1 |
Circle H Development, Inc. v. City of Woodstockgreen2 sentences1999“Where there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court failed to consider appellants’ amendment before ruling on appellees’ motion for summary judgment, we assume the amendment was properly considered.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Circle H Dev. v. City of Woodstock, 206 Ga. App. 473, 475 (2) ( 425 SE2d 891 ) *158 (1992). 1999“Where there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court failed to consider appellants’ amendment before ruling on appellees’ motion for summary judgment, we assume the amendment was properly considered.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Circle H Dev. v. City of Woodstock, 206 Ga. App. 473, 475 (2) ( 425 SE2d 891 ) *158 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Bedeski v. Atlanta Coliseum, Inc.green2 sentences1998“To be reviewable on appeal, an objection to the jury charge must be unmistakable in directing the attention of the trial court to the claimed error and must point out distinctly the portion of the charge challenged; the grounds of error must be stated with sufficient particularity to leave no doubt as to the portion of the charge challenged or as to the specific ground of challenge, and must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed. [Cit.] Such specificity is required to ensure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instruct 1998“To be reviewable on appeal, an objection to the jury charge must be unmistakable in directing the attention of the trial court to the claimed error and must point out distinctly the portion of the charge challenged; the grounds of error must be stated with sufficient particularity to leave no doubt as to the portion of the charge challenged or as to the specific ground of challenge, and must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed. [Cit.] Such specificity is required to ensure that the trial judge is afforded an opportunity to correct any error in the instruct | 1 | 1 |
Lissmore v. Kincadegreen2 sentences1997Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 551 ( 373 SE2d 819 ). 1997Lissmore v. Kincade, 188 Ga. App. 548, 551 ( 373 SE2d 819 ). | 1 | 1 |
Crowder v. Department of State Parksgreen2 sentences1982See Crowder v. Dept. of State Parks, 228 Ga. 436 ( 185 SE2d 908 ) (1971). 1982See Crowder v. Dept. of State Parks, 228 Ga. 436 ( 185 SE2d 908 ) (1971). | 1 | 1 |
A-1 Bonding Service, Inc. v. Huntergreen2 sentences1974In order to reach a decision on the charges in the absence of a ground of objection, the majority go through the old fashioned tongue and cheek maneuver of "knocking down a straw man" by blandly holding that the law no longer requires that counsel must point out what the court should have charged, citing as authority, A-1 Bonding Service v. Hunter, 125 Ga. App. 173, 174 (4b), supra, which (on p. 183) overruled the requirement of Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 ( 149 SE2d 393 ) that "The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction need 1974In order to reach a decision on the charges in the absence of a ground of objection, the majority go through the old fashioned tongue and cheek maneuver of "knocking down a straw man” by blandly holding that the law no longer requires that counsel must point out what the court should have charged, citing as authority, A-l Bonding Service v. Hunter, 125 Ga. App. 173, 174 (4b), supra, which (on p. 183) overruled the requirement of Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 ( 149 SE2d 393 ) that "The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction need | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1966In a charge relating to “one of the contentions of the defendant [which] is that it was necessary to kill the deceased to protect his property”, the trial judge charged: “One ■ who seeks in a violent manner to enter the habitation of another, and will not heed the remonstrance or persuasion of the owner or occupant, but continues the attack and invasion, intending to do serious injury to the person who resides there, to his house, or to some member of his family, such as wife and children, forfeits his life, and he who in good faith, under such circumstances, takes the life of a person so inva 1966In a charge relating to “one of the contentions of the defendant [which] is that it was necessary to kill the deceased to protect his property”, the trial judge charged: “One ■ who seeks in a violent manner to enter the habitation of another, and will not heed the remonstrance or persuasion of the owner or occupant, but continues the attack and invasion, intending to do serious injury to the person who resides there, to his house, or to some member of his family, such as wife and children, forfeits his life, and he who in good faith, under such circumstances, takes the life of a person so inva | 1 | 1 |
Chaffin v. Chaffingreen2 sentences1953Board of Education of Houston County v. Board of Trustees of Fort Valley Consolidated School District, 170 Ga. 509 (5) ( 153 S. E. 214 ); Chaffin v. Chaffin, 207 Ga. 36, 38 ( 59 S. E. 2d, 911 ). 7. 1953Board of Education of Houston County v. Board of Trustees of Fort Valley Consolidated School District, 170 Ga. 509 (5) ( 153 S. E. 214 ); Chaffin v. Chaffin, 207 Ga. 36, 38 ( 59 S. E. 2d, 911 ). 7. | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Smallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Black v. Aultman
green
2 sentences1988The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed to cure the error.’ Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 ).” Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1), 827 ( 172 SE2d 336 ). 1988The grounds of error urged must fully apprise the court of the error committed and the correction needed to cure the error.’ Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 ).” Black v. Aultman, 120 Ga. App. 826 (1), 827 ( 172 SE2d 336 ). | 3 | 1970–1988 |
Stone v. Burell
neutral
2 sentences1998We *811 construe the statute [OCGA § 5-5-25 (a)] as placing the duty on counsel of exercising a high degree of clarity in objecting to charges.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stone v. Burell, 161 Ga. App. 369 ( 288 SE2d 636 ). 1998We *811 construe the statute [OCGA § 5-5-25 (a)] as placing the duty on counsel of exercising a high degree of clarity in objecting to charges.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Stone v. Burell, 161 Ga. App. 369 ( 288 SE2d 636 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Glaser v. Meck
green
2 sentences1990We also agree with Cheeley that its third defense *545 adequately raised the defense of insufficiency of the expert's affidavit for purposes of OCGA § 9-11-12 (b), compare Glaser v. Meck, 258 Ga. 468 ( 369 SE2d 912 ) (1988), and note furthermore that had any confusion existed as to the grounds for that defense, an interrogatory addressing the matter could have been presented to Cheeley earlier than the ten month delay seen in the case at bar. 1990We also agree with Cheeley that its third defense *545 adequately raised the defense of insufficiency of the expert's affidavit for purposes of OCGA § 9-11-12 (b), compare Glaser v. Meck, 258 Ga. 468 ( 369 SE2d 912 ) (1988), and note furthermore that had any confusion existed as to the grounds for that defense, an interrogatory addressing the matter could have been presented to Cheeley earlier than the ten month delay seen in the case at bar. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bruton v. United States
green
1 sentence1982(Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (88 SC 1620, 20 LE2d 476)). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Dotson v. State
green
1 sentence1978It was harmful error for the court to fail to give any charge to the jury on accident . . .” Dotson v. State, 144 Ga. App. 113, 114 , supra. Judgment reversed. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Kramer v. State
green
1 sentence1978A trial judge should be extremely cautious and hesitant in refusing to submit an accused’s sole or principal defense to a jury for resolution upon the grounds that such defense, raised by a defendant’s testimony "is highly implausible and utterly beyond belief.” When a judge gets in the jury box to decide issues of fact he should not be too surprised when an appellate court advises him that "it is for the trier of fact to determine whether such act is criminal.” Kramer v. State, 230 Ga. 855, 856 , supra. We find "[t]he defendant’s testimony was sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Poss v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1975Poss v. Smith, 228 Ga. 168 ( 184 SE2d 465 ). 1975Poss v. Smith, 228 Ga. 168 ( 184 SE2d 465 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Wright v. Dilbeck
green
2 sentences1971Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 )." Wright v. Dilbeck, 122 Ga. App. 214 (17) ( 176 SE2d 715 ). 1971Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 SE2d 393 )." Wright v. Dilbeck, 122 Ga. App. 214 (17) ( 176 SE2d 715 ). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hathcox
neutral
2 sentences1962When it -appears that portions of the record essential to a determination of the errors complained of have not been specified or sent up, an appropriate remedy for the plaintiff in error is outlined in Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hathcox, 45 Ga. App. 822 (1) ( 165 SE 902 ), and for the defendant in error in Code § 6-812. 1962When it -appears that portions of the record essential to a determination of the errors complained of have not been specified or sent up, an appropriate remedy for the plaintiff in error is outlined in Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hathcox, 45 Ga. App. 822 (1) ( 165 SE 902 ), and for the defendant in error in Code § 6-812. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Adams v. Bishop
green
2 sentences1957As stated in Adams v. Bishop, 42 Ga. App. 811 (6) ( 157 S. E. 523 ): "The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions to the final judgment of the court is that it is `contrary to law', and that the court erred in rendering judgment `on each and all of the grounds of error set forth in his exceptions of fact.' There being no exception to the final judgment upon the ground that it was rendered without referring to a jury the exceptions of fact to the auditor's report as provided in . . . [Code § 10-402], the question whether the court erred in not referring the exceptions of fact to a ju 1957As stated in Adams v. Bishop, 42 Ga. App. 811 (6) ( 157 S. E. 523 ): "The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions to the final judgment of the court is that it is `contrary to law', and that the court erred in rendering judgment `on each and all of the grounds of error set forth in his exceptions of fact.' There being no exception to the final judgment upon the ground that it was rendered without referring to a jury the exceptions of fact to the auditor's report as provided in . . . [Code § 10-402], the question whether the court erred in not referring the exceptions of fact to a ju | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Henderson
green
1 sentence1957Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639 , 49 S. Ct. 449 (1929). | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Southern Railway Co. v. City Council of Greenville
neutral
1 sentence1957Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639 , 49 S. Ct. 449 (1929). | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Board of Education v. Board of Trustees of Fort Valley Consolidated School District
neutral
2 sentences1953Board of Education of Houston County v. Board of Trustees of Fort Valley Consolidated School District, 170 Ga. 509 (5) ( 153 S. E. 214 ); Chaffin v. Chaffin, 207 Ga. 36, 38 ( 59 S. E. 2d, 911 ). 7. 1953Board of Education of Houston County v. Board of Trustees of Fort Valley Consolidated School District, 170 Ga. 509 (5) ( 153 S. E. 214 ); Chaffin v. Chaffin, 207 Ga. 36, 38 ( 59 S. E. 2d, 911 ). 7. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Falvey v. Adamson
neutral
1 sentence1947The provisions of the Code sections as to the removal of such attachment which has been granted éx parte merely provide for an expeditious interlocutory hearing upon the question as to whether the writ has been improvidently granted, and that without awaiting the trial of the issue made on any traverse of “the truth of the affidavit in relation to the ground upon which the attachment is issued,” as provided for by § 8-605 of the Code.As was said by Mr. Justice Hall in Falvey v. Adamson, 73 Ga. 493 , 496: “The statute in question evidently contemplates that the plaintiff shall have power to rea | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Fuller v. Inman
green
2 sentences1947The instruction stated a correct and applicable principle of law (Fuller v. Inman, 10 Ga. App. 680 (1), 74 S. E. 287 ), and when considered in connection with the entire charge, was not subject to the other criticisms made against it. 1947The instruction stated a correct and applicable principle of law (Fuller v. Inman, 10 Ga. App. 680 (1), 74 S. E. 287 ), and when considered in connection with the entire charge, was not subject to the other criticisms made against it. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Eady v. Magnolia Cemetery Co.
green
1 sentence1934Ordinary diligence would require counsel for plaintiff in error to examine the record, and be ready to suggest a diminution, if necessary.” The case of Eady v. Magnolia Cemetery Co., supra, was brought by seven parties, alleging themselves to have been originally stockholders in the Magnolia Cemetery Company. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Herrington v. Flanders
green
1 sentence1933Clements v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., 115 Ga. 851 ( 42 S. E. 222 ). | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Clements v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.
neutral
1 sentence1933Clements v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., 115 Ga. 851 ( 42 S. E. 222 ). | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. England
green
2 sentences1929Since, as was held in the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810 ( 129 S. E. 75 ), the judge of the superior court, in passing upon an appeal from an award of the industrial commission, has no discretionary power to set aside the award, there is no merit in the grounds of the exception that the judgment of the superior court affirming the award should be set aside upon the ground that it appears from his order that, while he affirmed the award solely upon the ground that there was some evidence to support it, he was nevertheless of the opinion that the claimant was justly entitl 1929Since, as was held in the case of Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810 ( 129 S. E. 75 ), the judge of the superior court, in passing upon an appeal from an award of the industrial commission, has no discretionary power to set aside the award, there is no merit in the grounds of the exception that the judgment of the superior court affirming the award should be set aside upon the ground that it appears from his order that, while he affirmed the award solely upon the ground that there was some evidence to support it, he was nevertheless of the opinion that the claimant was justly entitl | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Durand v. Grimes green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Askew v. Dupree green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Avera v. Tool, McGarrah & Toudee neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Anderson v. Southern Railway Co. green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Rigell v. Sirmans green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Leggat v. Gerrick neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Griner v. Baggs & Perry green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Richter v. State neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Crouch & Son v. Spooner neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Connor v. Cochran neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Blue v. Fidelity Deposit Co. neutral | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Bartow Guano Co. v. Adair green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Georgia Granite Corp. v. Union Granite Co. green | 1 | 1925–1925 |
| Stone v. State green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Woodruff v. Wilkinson neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Hicks v. Sharp neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Teasley v. State green | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Jenkins v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Rooks v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Strickland v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Blanchard v. State neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.
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.