Rebich v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Ferguson v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners (2002), State of Georgia v. International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. (2016)
62 state decisions
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 Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Rayle · Alexander v. DeKalb County · Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resources · Bedford v. Bedford · City of Atlanta Board of Zoning Adjustment v. Midtown North, Ltd.
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (a) and 5-6-35 (a) are involved when, as here, a trial court issues a judgment listed in the direct appeal statute in a case whose subject matter is covered under the discretionary appeal statute. In resolving similar conflicts, this court has ruled that an application for appeal is required when the “underlying subject matter” is listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a). [Cit.] Therefore, the discretionary application procedure must be followed, even when the party is appealing a judgment or order that is procedurally subject to a direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a). [Cits.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A party should review the discretionary application statute to see if it covers the underlying subject matter of the appeal. If it does, then the party must file an application for appeal as provided under OCGA § 5-6-35.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The clear intent of section (a) (1), above, was to give the appellate courts . . . the discretion not to entertain an appeal where the superior court had reviewed a decision of certain specified lower tribunals (i.e., two tribunals had already adjudicated the case).”
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.