green
Positive treatment
Trending · 94 recent citers
79.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Rivera v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
On motion for new trial, even if the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction, the trial court may order a new trial if the “verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity”17 or if the verdict is “decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may approached victim in a dark area of parking lot, ordered victim not to move and give him money, which allegedly lead to victim drawing gun and being shot as defendant attempted to wrest gun away from victim); Wainwright, 305 Ga. at 71 (5) (a) (“Because the ev…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GLOBAL ONE FINANCIAL v. EQUITABLE HOLDINGS INC
Auld v. Forbes, 848 S.E.2d 876, 879-80 (Ga. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 740 S.E.2d 622, 625 (Ga. 2013)). misrepresentation claim are: “(1) the defendant negligently made an incorrect statement; (2) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant’s statement; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a consequence of relying upon that statement.” Pharmacy & Healthcare Commc'ns, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pounds v. State
(2×)
See also, e.g., Terrell v. State, 313 Ga. 120, 124-126 ( 868 SE2d 764 ) (2022) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to excuse a juror for cause who stated during voir dire that, despite “her cousin’s conviction for armed robbery and her ex-boyfriend’s shooting . . . she would attempt to separate those issues from anything she heard in this case and would do her best to be fair”); Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 723 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion when the trial court denied a motion to strike a prospective juror fo…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
POSADA v. PARKER PROMOTIONS
Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 740 S.E.2d 622, 626 (Ga. 2013); Martin Luther King, Jr., Ctr. for Soc.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly v. State
Likewise, the State’s arguments that Kelly’s counsel “alone” prepared the draft order the trial court ultimately entered,7 and that the written order did not reflect the trial court’s earlier oral ruling,8 sound in a due-process analysis this 7 Even assuming, without deciding, “[t]hat the written order was proposed by [opposing] counsel[, this] does not mean that the trial judge did not exercise his discretion regarding its contents.” Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, 303 Ga. 764, 773 ( 815 SE2d 70 ) (2018) (citing Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013). …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marlon Matta v. State
We will not disturb the trial 14 See Gadson, 303 Ga. at 878 (3) (a), citing Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 716 (5) (b) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (affirming denial of motion for new trial because the defendant did not establish harm or show that he was prevented from raising issues on appeal based on four missing trial exhibits); Ruffin v. State, 283 Ga. 87, 88 (6) ( 656 SE2d 140 ) (2008) (affirming conviction because defendant failed to allege specific harm from the absence of a transcript of voir dire, opening statements, bench conferences, and the polling of the jury); Smith v. State, 251 Ga.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
OWENS v. PROPES
Georgia law recognizes a tort claim based on “public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff.” Dep't of Lab. v. McConnell, 828 S.E.2d 352, 359 (Ga. 2019) (quoting Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 740 S.E.2d 622, 626 (Ga. 2013)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Terrell v. State
(2×)
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 721 (9) (739 SE2d 332) (2013) 4 The State asserts that there is insufficient evidence regarding the precise reasons for delay, but agrees it is the duty of all involved in the criminal justice system to ensure that appropriate post-conviction motions are filed, litigated, and decided without unnecessary delay.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
YOUNG v. THE STATE 6-24-2021 Substitute Opinion Issued.
See West v. State, 306 Ga. 783, 787 (2) ( 833 SE2d 501 ) (2019); Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 716 (5) (b) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (denying relief where the defendant failed to show that he was harmed or prevented from raising any viable issue on appeal by the omission from the record of four exhibits, including three mitigation photographs). 48.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. State
See West v. State, 306 Ga. 783, 787 (2) ( 833 SE2d 501 ) (2019); Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 716 (5) (b) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (denying relief where the defendant failed to show that he was harmed or prevented from raising any viable issue on appeal by the omission from the record of four exhibits, including three 114 mitigation photographs). 48.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. State
See West v. State, 306 Ga. 783, 787 (2) ( 833 SE2d 501 ) (2019); Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 716 (5) (b) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (denying relief where the defendant failed to show that he was harmed or prevented from raising any viable issue on appeal by the omission from the record of four exhibits, including three mitigation photographs). 48.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.
Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 740 S.E.2d 622, 626 (Ga. 2013) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raines v. State
“Because the State constitutional issue was not raised or ruled on below, it is waived on appeal.” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 731 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Collins v. State
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 721 (9) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Holmes
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Indeed, once entered, the findings in an adopted final order “are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous”; “even orders prepared ex parte do not violate due process and should not be vacated unless a party can demonstrate that the process by which the judge arrived at them was fundamentally unfair.” Brockman, 292 Ga. at 713-714 (citations and punctuation omitted) (holding that the trial court’s adoption of a proposed order verbatim did not amount to either a denial of due process or evidence that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under OCGA �…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
David Billy McAllister, Jr. v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Specifically, he contends that this argument was not based upon the evidence introduced at trial because, in the victim’s various statements about the incident, she at one point indicated that a second man participated in the crimes and that a second minor female was also present. 59 Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 727 (14) (a) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted); accord Gissendaner v. State, 272 Ga. 704, 713 (10) (a) ( 532 SE2d 677 ) (2000). 60 Brockman, 292 Ga. at 727 (14) (a); Gissendaner, 272 Ga. at 713 (10) (a). 61 Cf. Brockman, 292 Ga. at 727 (14) (a) (“Nevertheless, we con…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McAllister v. State
(2×)
Brockman , 292 Ga. at 727 (14) (a), 739 S.E.2d 332 ; Gissendaner , 272 Ga. at 713 (10) (a), 532 S.E.2d 677 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan v. State
(2×)
It is true that “we find distasteful any argument that unnecessarily impugns the integrity of opposing counsel, even if obliquely,” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 727 (14) (a) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted), and we do not condone a lawyer accusing another lawyer of deceit in the presence of the jury.3 Nonetheless, the decision to grant a motion for mistrial lies “within the trial court’s sound discretion, and the trial court’s exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless a mistrial is essential to preserve the defendant’s right to …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jordan v. State
Cf. Brockman , 292 Ga. at 727 (14) (a), 739 S.E.2d 332 (no reasonable probability that prosecutor's attack on defense counsel's credibility affected the jury's decision to impose death sentence). 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Howard Williams v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 730 (17) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013), Lewis v. State, 291 Ga. 273, 278 (4), n. 5 ( 731 SE2d 51 ) (2012), and Taylor v. State, 262 Ga. 584, 586 (3) ( 422 SE2d 430 ) (1992).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Daisy Byrd Mobley v. Claire Fermont Langlais
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Bullard v. MRA Holding, LLC, 292 Ga. 748 , 740 S.E.2d 622, 626 (2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Bullard v. MRA Holding, 740 S.E.2d at 624, 626 (2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowen v. State
See Hurt v. State, 298 Ga. 51, 59 (4) ( 779 SE2d 313 ) (2015); Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 720 (8) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013). 4.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gray v. State
For a prospective juror to be excused for cause, it must be shown that he “holds an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant that is so fixed and definite that the juror will be unable to set the opinion aside and decide the case based upon the evidence or the court’s charge upon the evidence.” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 721 (9) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Patricia Reid
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 (4) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013); see White, supra at 524 (2) (“In exercising . . . discretion [under the general grounds], the trial judge must consider some of the things that she cannot when assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, including case. 5 any conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence.”) (citation omitted).; Choisnet, supra at 861 (“A trial court reviewing a motion for new trial based on [general] grounds has a duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence and consider the credibili…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Reid
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 (4) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013); see White, supra at 524 (2) (“In exercising ... discretion [under the general grounds], the trial judge must consider some of the things that she cannot when assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, including any conflicts in the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of the evidence.”) (citation omitted); Choisnet, supra at 861 (“Atrial court reviewing a motion for newtrialbased on [general] grounds has a duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witn…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carter v. State
On the other hand, “[t]he presence or absence of malice is irrelevant to commission of felony murder” and the “intent to kill, like malice, is not an element of [that] offense.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 730 (16) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chernard Carter v. State
On the other hand, “[t]he presence or absence of malice is irrelevant to commission of felony murder” and the “intent to kill, like malice, is not an element of [that] offense.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 730 (16) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nwakanma v. State
But “the extent of cross-examination with 16 respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court, so long as the court does not cut off all inquiry on a subject that the defense is entitled to cross-examine on.” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 725 (11) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nwakanma v. State
But “the extent of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial court, so long as the court does not cut off all inquiry on a subject that the defense is entitled to cross-examine on.” Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 725 (11) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 721 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edwards v. Ethicon, Inc.
“The place where the tort was committed, or, ‘the locus de-licti, is the place where the injury sustained was suffered rather than the place where the act was committed, or, as it is sometimes more generally put, it is the place where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place.’” Bullard v. MRA Holding, 292 Ga. 748 , 740 S.E.2d 622, 625 (2013) (quoting Risdon Enter., Inc. v. Colemill Enter., Inc., 172 Ga.App. 902 , 324 S.E.2d 738, 740 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Toby T. Copeland v. State
In fact, Copeland’s counsel engaged in a brief colloquy with the trial court concerning Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 (4) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (evaluating “general grounds” argument), in which the trial court confirmed its familiarity with that decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Copeland v. State
In fact, Copeland’s counsel engaged in a brief colloquy with the trial court concerning Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 (4) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (evaluating “general grounds” argument), in which the trial court confirmed its familiarity with that decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerrell Williams v. State
(2×)
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 720 (7) (e) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. State
(2×)
Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 720 (7) (e) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jimenez v. State
Pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-20 the trial court may grant a new trial “[i]n any case when the verdict of a jury is found contrary to evidence and the principles of justice and equity.” In addition, pursuant to OCGA § 5-5-21, a trial court may grant a new trial “where the verdict may be decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence even though there may appear to be some slight evidence in favor of the finding.” In this regard, OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 “provide the trial court with the broad discretion to sit as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and weigh the evidence on a motion fo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Muse v. State
Cf. Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 729 (15) n.8 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (“Even if [the defendant’s] pulling the gun back inside the vehicle and fleeing after [the victim] twice did not respond to his demands is seen as evidence of abandonment, the crime of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery was completed when [the defendant] pointed the gun at [the victim] and demanded that [the victim] turn his money over to him.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humphrey v. Nance
(2×)
For the same reasons stated above, there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have found credible Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony that, due to that exposure and Nance’s mental impairments, Nance’s statement that he did not know that he fired the gun was “more likely than not true.” Moreover, Nance was also charged with felony murder with the underlying felony being the attempted armed robbery of Balogh’s car. “[T]he jury did not have to find that [Nance] acted with an intent to kill in order to find him guilty of felony murder, as intent to kill... is not an element of the…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edenfield v. State
After all, we have held in prior cases that a defendant is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors against which to exercise his peremptory strikes, Rice v. State, 292 Ga. 191, 194-195 (3) ( 733 SE2d 755 ) (2012), and we have held that a juror unable or unwilling to give fair consideration to all of the legal sentencing options is not qualified. 13 Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 718 (7) (a) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jason Thompson v. State
See Merritt v. State, 311 Ga. 875, 889 (6) ( 860 SE2d 455 ) (2021) (defendant was unable to show plain error for admission of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence against the victim because such evidence contradicted his accident defense). 11 Burney, 309 Ga. at 277-278 (1) (a). 12 See Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 729 (15) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (superceded by statute on other grounds) (holding that the defendant “acted with criminal negligence when he pointed the loaded gun at [the victim], rendering the defense of accident inapplicable.”) 9 2.
discussed
Cited "see"
JANICE COWAN ALLIGOOD v. PIEDMONT MEDICAL CARE CORPORATION, INC.
See Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 720 (8) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (defendant “raised no objections on the stated grounds at the time of voir dire and, thus, has not preserved [claim that court improperly restricted voir dire] for appeal”); Riley v. State, 278 Ga. 677, 685 (6) (A) ( 604 SE2d 488 ) (2004) (“[T]he record reveals that [defendant] did not object to the court’s preventing him from asking [the] question[ ]. . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas v. State
(2×)
See Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 714-715 (4) (b) (739 SE2d 332) (2013) (trial court’s language that evidence was not “sufficiently close” to warrant new trial shows that court exercised its 7 discretionary authority to not grant a new trial).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trivynski Alexander v. State
As a result, the trial court had “an affirmative duty to exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence to determine whether a new trial as to his convictions . . . was warranted.”18 And while the trial court repeatedly mentions the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, it also appears to have exercised its independent discretion to weigh the evidence in 16 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 17 Id. (emphasis added); see White, 293 Ga. at 525 (2) (“Nothing in the order of the trial court indicates to us that the trial court performed…
discussed
Cited "see"
Morris v. State
See Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 720 (8) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (“[The appellant] raised no objections on the stated grounds at the time of voir dire and, thus, has not preserved these issues for appeal.”). 4.
discussed
Cited "see"
Nikario Lannard Gresham v. State
Thus, the trial court had an affirmative duty to “exercise its discretion and weigh the evidence to determine whether a new trial as to his convictions . . . was warranted.”11 But while the trial court cursorily noted in its order that Gresham asserted the “standard grounds” in his motion for new trial, nothing in the order “indicates to us that the trial court performed its duty to exercise 9 Holmes, 306 Ga. at 528 (2) (punctuation omitted). 10 Id.; accord White, 293 Ga. at 525 (2). 11 Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 (4) ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (punctuation omitted) (emphasis su…
discussed
Cited "see"
Gadson v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brockman , 292 Ga. at 716 , 739 S.E.2d 332 . (c) Appellant does allege particularized harm from the missing search warrant for the apartment, claiming that the omission prevents this Court from adequately reviewing his objection to the warrant's admission into evidence during the trial.
examined
Cited "see"
Gadson v. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Brockman, 292 Ga. at 716 . (c) Appellant does allege particularized harm from the missing search warrant for the apartment, claiming that the omission prevents this Court from adequately reviewing his objection to the warrant’s admission into evidence during the trial.
discussed
Cited "see"
MONDY v. MAGNOLIA ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC
See Brockman v. State, 292 Ga. 707, 713 ( 739 SE2d 332 ) (2013) (rejecting the argument that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion when it adopted a party’s proposed order verbatim); Fuller v. Fuller, 279 Ga. 805, 806 ( 621 SE2d 419 ) (2005) (noting that “[e]ven when a trial court adopts a proposed order verbatim, the findings of fact therein are those of the court and may be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
See Brockman v. State , 292 Ga. 707 , 713, 739 S.E.2d 332 (2013) (rejecting the argument that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion when it adopted a party's proposed order verbatim); Fuller v. Fuller , 279 Ga. 805 , 806, 621 S.E.2d 419 (2005) (noting that "[e]ven when a trial court adopts a proposed order verbatim, the findings of fact therein are those of the court and may be reversed only if they are clearly erroneous"). *79 For these reasons, we reject the contention that the written contempt order-the judgment under review by the Court of Appeals and this Court-was merely admi…
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS W. DICKSON
S13Y0795.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 25, 2013.
Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittel-man, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.
Published
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition filed by Thomas W. Dickson (State Bar No. 482888) for voluntary surrender of his license to practice law. Dickson admits that he was employed by a law firm from December 2008 through February 2012, that while so employed he repeatedly directed the accounting department to transfer funds from the firm’s trust account to his personal account; that he did not have authority from the firm, nor permission from the clients to direct such transfers; and that he did not properly account for the transfers. Dickson admits that his conduct deprived the firm of income it would have realized if he had properly accounted for the work he was doing and timely prepared invoices to the clients. He acknowledges that the firm had to account to clients for the transfers of funds to his account, and he admits that by this conduct he has violated Rule 1.15 (I) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar recommends that the Court accept the petition.
We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Dickson’s petition for voluntary surrender of his license, which is tantamount to disbarment. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Thomas W. Dickson be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Dickson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).
Voluntary surrender of license accepted.