In two multimillion-dollar cases, Georgia’s Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are wrestling with lawyers’ obligations to object when their opponents appear to violate a judge’s rule against bringing up particular evidence or arguments.

The cases concern trial tactics around sensitive topics that one side—and a judge—believe could unfairly influence a jury. Although an immediate objection typically preserves the issue for an appeal, a 1982 state high court ruling held that requiring an objection would force the lawyer who asked for the restriction “to call special attention to prejudicial evidence” the judge had already ruled should be shielded from the jury.