green
Positive treatment
12.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Whittington v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bishop v. State
“In making this determination, we are not limited to the facts on the face of the affidavit, and we are free to make judgments on the veracity of any or all of the evidence.” Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); accord Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387, 391 ( 181 SE2d 42 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. State
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Hornsby v. State, 124 Ga. App. 724 ( 185 SE2d 623 ); Fowler v. State, 128 Ga. App. 501, 503 ( 197 SE2d 502 ); Butler v. State, 130 Ga. App. 469, 470 (1) ( 203 SE2d 558 ).” State v. Causey, 132 Ga. App. 17, 20 (1) ( 207 SE2d 225 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. State
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hogan v. State
Zimmerman v. State, 131 Ga. App. 793, 794 ( 207 SE2d 220 ), citing Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Causey
(2×)
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Hornsby v. State, 124 Ga. App. 724 ( 185 SE2d 623 ); Fowler v. State, 128 Ga. App. 501, 503 ( 197 SE2d 502 ); Butler v. State, 130 Ga. App. 469, 470 (1) ( 203 SE2d 558 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zimmerman v. State
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Luke v. State
In Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ) the court determined that "the law [does not require] that the officer know the goods to be stolen property at the time they are seized.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dugan v. State
It is enough that he have probable cause to believe that this is the case.” Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Butler v. State
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 887 ( 178 SE2d 257 ).” DePalma v. State, supra p. 276.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Blackmon v. Georgia Independent Oilmen's Ass'n
Stations, 121 Ga. App. 454 ( 174 SE2d 224 ) which was affirmed in 226 Ga. 883 *172 ( 178 SE2d 173 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DePalma v. State
Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 887 ( 178 SE2d 257 ). (c) It is contended that the search in the present case was a "general search.” Such a search has been often condemned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
discussed
Cited "see"
Durden v. State
See Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883 ( 178 SE2d 257 ) (1970); Mitchell v. State, 239 Ga. 456, 458 ( 238 SE2d 100 ) (1977) (magistrate may rely on information related by one officer to another officer who gives the affidavit).
cited
Cited "see"
Minor v. State
Medlin v. State, 168 Ga. App. 551 ( 309 SE2d 639 ); see Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 888 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Whittington v. State, 165 Ga. App. 763, 764-765 ( 302 SE2d 617 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Bryan v. State
See Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387 ( 181 SE2d 42 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bell v. State
(2×)
See Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387 ( 181 SE2d 42 ); Davis v. State, 127 Ga. App. 76 ( 192 SE2d 538 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnston v. State
See Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885 ( 178 SE2d 257 ). (b) We must now decide the question of whether or not the sworn evidence before the judicial officer, considered in its totality, justified the issuance of the search warrant.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Duncan v. State
See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 889 (5) ( 178 SE2d 257 ) (1970) (defendant’s guilty knowledge inferred in part from fact that defendant had hidden the stolen goods); Wilson v. State, 227 Ga. App. 59, 60 (1) ( 488 SE2d 121 ) (1997) (defendant’s concern that goods had been stolen inferred in part from fact that defendant went out of his way to stress to pawn shop employee that he was pawning the goods on behalf of his friend). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
King v. State
XIII. 9 See State v. Stephens, 252 Ga. 181, 182 ( 311 SE2d 823 ) (1984). 10 See OCGA §§ 17-5-20 to 17-5-32 (governing searches with warrants). 11 See OCGA § 17-5-20 (a). 12 See OCGA § 17-5-21 (a); see also Lewis v. State, 255 Ga. 101, 104 ( 335 SE2d 560 ) (1985) (evidence may be presented by written affidavit or sworn testimony). 13 See OCGA § 17-5-21 (a); see also Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 885-886 ( 178 SE2d 257 ) (1970) (magistrate must exercise “own independent discretion, and not just echo that of the deposing officer”). 14 See OCGA § 17-5-25. 15 See Zurcher v. The Stanford…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Reynolds v. State
Compare Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883 ( 178 SE2d 257 ); Summerville v. State, 226 Ga. 854 ( 178 SE2d 162 ); Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730 ( 182 SE2d 779 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vaughn v. State
(2×)
See also Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883 ( 178 SE2d 257 ) and Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387 ( 181 SE2d 42 ).
STATE OF GEORGIA
v.
THONI OIL MAGIC BENZOL GAS STATIONS, INC.; And Vice Versa
v.
THONI OIL MAGIC BENZOL GAS STATIONS, INC.; And Vice Versa
25822, 25857.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 22, 1970.
Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, William L. Harper, H. Perry Michael, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant., Charles L. Weltner, for appellee.
Almand, Mobley, Grice, Nichols, Felton, Holt, Williams, Undercover, Hawes.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
We granted the writ of certiorari in this case to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals (121 Ga. App. 454) because it involved the authority of the State to collect taxes from a gasoline dealer under the Sales and Use Tax Act (Code Ann. Ch. 92-34a), and raised questions of first impression in this court.
We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and after further consideration concluded that its judgment is correct, and it is unnecessary to add any further reasons than those set out in the Court of Appeals opinion.
Judgment affirmed.