green
Positive treatment
14.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chadwick v. Brazell
Brazell argues that Loving and Parker were decided prior to the tort reform revision in OCGA § 24-7-702, and that the statute now requires all experts to qualify according to its provisions. 4 But even prior to the effective date of OCGA § 24-7-702 in 2013, and its predecessor OCGA § 24-9-67.1 in 2005, Georgia law allowed the trial court to determine within its sound discretion whether “a witness has such learning and experience in a particular art, science or profession as to entitle him to be deemed prima facie an expert.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 75…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lisa M. Brazell v. Brian S. Chadwick
Brazell argues that Loving and Parker were decided prior to the tort reform revision in OCGA § 24-7-702, and that the statute now requires all experts to qualify 10 according to its provisions.4 But even prior to the effective date of OCGA § 24-7-702 in 2013, and its predecessor OCGA § 24-9-67.1 in 2005, Georgia law allowed the trial court to determine within its sound discretion whether “a witness has such learning and experience in a particular art, science or profession as to entitle him to be deemed prima facie an expert.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Redd v. State, 240 Ga. …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cupe v. State
We note that “[t]he use of a flashlight to see what would otherwise be in ‘plain view’ falls within the ‘plain view’ standard.” Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 754 (1) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walter Charles Cupe v. State
We disagree. “[A] defendant has a right to severance where the offenses are joined solely on the ground that they are of the same or similar character because of the great risk of prejudice from a joint disposition of unrelated charges.”16 But “where the joinder is 14 We note that “[t]he use of a flashlight to see what would otherwise be in ‘plain view’ falls within the ‘plain view’ standard.” Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 754 (1) (243 Se2d 16) (1978). 15 See, e.g., Galbreath, supra at 83 (2) (“[t]he evidence authorized the determination that the contraband . . . [was] in pla…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richardson v. State
The removal of the vehicle from its location on a dangerous curve to the sheriff’s department did not affect the officers’ probable cause to continue their search. “[PJolice officers with probable cause to search an automobile on the scene where it was stopped could constitutionally do so later at the station house without first obtaining a warrant. . . . [T]he probable cause factor that developed at the scene still obtained at the station house.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 754 (1) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Queen v. McDaniel
(2×)
Co. v. Worthington, 165 Ga. App. 303, 306 (3) ( 299 SE2d 567 ); Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978); Morris v. State, *357 159 Ga. App. 600, 601 (1) ( 284 SE2d 103 ) (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flynn v. State
Although we approved of the admission of x-rays under the business records statute, OCGA § 24-3-14, in Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 757 ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978), and the x-rays relied upon in this case could have fit under this exception to the hearsay rule, the prosecution did not attempt to introduce them as such.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Galloway v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 754 ( 243 SE2d 16 ); State v. Lyons, 167 Ga. App. 747 , supra. Decided February 4, 1986 Rehearing denied February 25, 1986 James P. Brown, Jr., Albert B.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudson v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pittman v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
House v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hanson v. State
Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stevens v. State
We have recently considered and rejected an almost identical claim, similarly made for the first time on appeal, in Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753, 755-756 ( 243 SE2d 16 ) (1978).
cited
Cited "see"
Wabash Life Insurance v. Jones
See Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753 (3) ( 243 SE2d 16 ) as to waiver of objection to certification.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. State
See also Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ). . . . ‘Whether or not a witness is allowed to testify as an expert is a question for the sound discretion of the trial court and such discretion, unless abused, will not be disturbed.’ Hogan v. Olivera, 141 Ga. App. 399, 401 ( 233 SE2d 428 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Morris v. State
(2×)
See also Redd v. State, 240 Ga. 753 (2) ( 243 SE2d 16 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PURCELL
v.
PURCELL
v.
PURCELL
33066.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jan 24, 1978.
Albert H. Dallas, Samuel A. Fowler, Jr., Wyck A. Knox, Jr., for appellant., Martha Miller, for appellee.
Published
Per curiam.
The law pertaining to this case is controlled by our decision in Matthews v. Matthews, 238 Ga. 201 (232 SE2d 76) (1977), and the judge of the trial court was correct in so holding. See also Moore v. Moore, 240 Ga. 751 (1978).
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.