green
Positive treatment
11.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923
1974
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rouse v. State
(2×)
In support of this proposition, the Court cited the following series of Georgia appellate decisions going back to 1860: See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 30 Ga. 426, 431 (5) (1860) (not error to state a fact that is undisputed by the defense); McCloud v. State, 166 Ga. 436, 444 ( 143 SE 558 ) (1928) (“[w]hile the judge is forbidden to express an opinion as to whether any particular fact has been proved, yet, when the evidence to establish a fact is undisputed, and the fact is admitted by the accused on his trial, it is not error for the judge to [state that fact] to the jury”); Thomas v. State,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sauerwein v. State
The case was docketed in this Court on September 14, 2005, and submitted for decision without oral argument on November 8, 2005. 2 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). 3 Mullins v. State, 269 Ga. 157, 158-159 ( 496 SE2d 252 ) (1998). 4 OCGA§ 17-8-57 (“[s]hould any judge violate this Code section, the violation shall he held by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to he error and the decision in the case reversed, and a new trial granted.”). 5 Paul v. State, 272 Ga. 845, 848 ( 537 SE2d 58 ) (2000); Crawford v. State, 139 Ga. App. 347, 349 ( 228 SE2d 371 ) (…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scarboro v. State
Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 39 ( 107 S. E. 418 ); City of Beckley v. Roberts, supra. In other words, all ownership of the property in the defendant was negatived by the evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. State
Co. v. Jernigan, 128 Ga. 501, 503 ( 57 S. E. 791 ); Jones v. State, 130 Ga. 274, 286 ( 60 S. E. 840 ); Taylor v. State, 135 Ga. 622, 625 ( 70 S. E. 237 ); Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 40 ( 107 S. E. 418 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rolland v. State
See Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 40 ( 107 SE 418 ) (1921) (statute prohibiting expressions of opinion by trial court regarding what has or has not been proven “refers to the expression or intimation of an opinion touching some fact at issue in the case, and not to something that is conceded by both parties”) (citations and punctuation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keno Rolland v. State
See Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 40 ( 107 SE 418 ) (1921) (statute prohibiting expressions of opinion by trial court regarding what has or has not been proven “refers to the expression or intimation of an opinion touching some fact at issue in the case, and not to something that is conceded by both parties”) (citations and punctuation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hall v. State
See Bradley v. State, 2 Ga. App. 622 (2) ( 58 SE 1064 ), Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38 (2) ( 107 SE 418 ), Law v. State, 121 Ga. App. 106 (1) ( 173 SE2d 98 ), Spurlin v. State, 222 Ga. 179 (7) ( 149 SE2d 315 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Waller v. State
(2×)
See Nalls v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38 ( 107 S. E. 354 ). !2.
discussed
Cited "see"
Pope v. State
See Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38 (2), 40 ( 107 S. E. 418 ), where the defendant “admitted he took the mule and sold it;” and Johnson v. State, 30 Ga. 426 (5), where it is held: “It is not error for the court to state a fact, as a fact, to the jury, which is admitted by counsel in defense, and on which there is no issue.” In Miller v. State, 151 Ga. 710 (7) ( 108 S. E. 38 ), the court said: “Under a fair construction of all of the evidence and the prisoner’s statement, we think these facts are undisputed, aiid therefore the statement of them by the court was not error.” The gis…
cited
Cited "see"
Kidd v. State
See Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38 ( 107 S. E. 418 ); Stokes v. State, 84 Ga. 258 ( 10 S. E. 740 ); Farm v. State, 24 Ga. App. 114 ( 100 S. E. 36 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jemal David Coleman v. State
See also Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 40 ( 107 SE 418 ) (1921) (statute prohibiting expressions of opinion by trial court “refers to the expression or intimation of an opinion touching some fact at issue in the case, and not to something that is conceded by both parties”) (citations 10 and punctuation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Coleman v. State
See also Thomas v. State, 27 Ga. App. 38, 40 ( 107 SE 418 ) (1921) (statute prohibiting expressions of opinion by trial court “refers to the expression or intimation of an opinion touching some fact at issue involved in the case, and not to something that is conceded by both parties”) (citations and punctuation omitted).
NALLS
v.
State
v.
State
12249.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
May 11, 1921.
Astor Merritt, for plaintiff in error., J. B. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.
Luke.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Where an indictment charges the accused with having driven an automobile along a named street at a rate of speed greater than thirty miles an hour, the evidence must show that it was along that street that the automobile was so driven, before a conviction would be authorized.' It will not suffice to show that the automobile was driven on another street and at a different place than that which is alleged in the indictment. The particular public highway or street on which the accused was alleged to have driven his automobile in violation of law was alleged in the indictment. The evidence failed to show this allegation to be- true. It was, therefore, error to overrule the motion for a new trial. See Burkes v. State, 7 Ga. App. 39 (65 S. E. 1091).
Judgment reversed.