green
Positive treatment
3.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1922
1974
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Huff v. State
In Johnson v. State, 152 Ga. 271, 272 ( 109 S. E. 662 ), decided in November 1921, after the decision in the Weeks case, in an opinion prepared for the Supreme Court of Georgia by Mr. Justice George, who is now a member from Georgia of the United States Senate and who is considered by many to be one of the great constitutional lawyers of the United States, the court said: “The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States—including of course the fourth [and fifth]— refer to powers exercised by the government of the United States; and not to those of the individual States.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis v. State Board of Medical Examiners
Johnson v. State, 152 Ga. 271, 273 (109 S. E. 662, 19 A. L.
cited
Cited "see"
Walker v. Whittle
See Johnson v. State, 152 Ga. 271 ( 109 S. E. 662 ); Buffington v. State, 33 Ga. App. 162 (3) ( 125 S. E. 723 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Herndon v. State
See the discussion and citations in Johnson v. State, 152 Ga. 271 ( 109 S. E. 662 ), and in Kennemer v. State, supra. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has also held that these provisions do not apply to evidence obtained by State or city officers so as to exclude it even in Federal prosecutions, where the officers were not acting with a view to such prosecution or in conjunction with Federal officers in obtaining the evidence.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Riggs v. State
See also Johnson v. State, 152 Ga. 271 ( 109 S. E. 662 , 19 A. L.
Gordon, Gartrell & Harlin Reagan
v.
Adamson
v.
Adamson
No. 2518.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Nov 17, 1921.
J. S. Edtvards, Taylor Smith, and Boykin & Boykin, for plaintiffs., Griffith & Matthews, B. IF. Adamson, and Smith & Millican, contra.
George.
Published
1. Where on the trial of a claim case there was no conflict in the evidence, and that introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, demanded a verdict for the claimant, it was not erroneous to direct a verdict for the claimant. Civil Code (1910), § 5926.
2. The assignments of error on the admissibility of testimony do not show cause for reversal.
Judgment affirmed.