Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 Ga. App. 677 - Mann v. State

154 Ga. App. 677 - Mann v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2015

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

1301980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Fisher v. United States · State v. Fleming · State v. Collett · 124 Ga. App. 190 - Inman v. State · Holsey v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any alleged prejudice or bias against the party’s attorney rather than the party himself is not, per se, grounds for disqualification. If it were, an attorney who felt himself to be the object of such bias would be the living embodiment of a limitation on the trial judge’s power and responsibility to hear cases within the jurisdiction of the judge’s court. If the attorney and his relationship with the judge is determinative of whether or not that trial judge is “qualified” to hear cases which are otherwise within his court’s jurisdiction, that attorney, depending upon whether or not he moved to disqualify on these grounds, would have the ultimate power to confer upon or deny to the judge this jurisdictional power and authority. If this were so, in some circumstances it could be in the attorney’s “interest” to cultivate the judge’s prejudice so as to avoid appearance before him. Such an attorney could offer clients not only legal advice and representation but also their “choice” of judges. Obviously this form of “judge shopping” is not a power which the bar can exercise over the bench of this state. Mann v State, 269 S.E.2d 863, 864 (Ga. App. 1980).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(t)he intrusion into the area of self-incrimination is no greater than a requirement that a probationer answer all reasonable inquiries of his probation officer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.