Breaking NewsInsurance Coverage Law Center will be offline for scheduled maintenance Saturday May 8 3 AM US EST to 12 PM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.

 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Frank Lowrey (left) and Laurie Webb Daniel. (Photos: John Disney/ALM) Frank Lowrey (left) and Laurie Webb Daniel. (Photos: John Disney/ALM)

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.

This premium content is locked for
Insurance Coverage Law Center subscribers only.

Start a free trial to enjoy unlimited access to the single source of objective legal analysis, practical insights, and news for the insurance industry.

  • Access the most current expert analysis and daily developments across jurisdictions
  • Solve complex research issues with expert tools and intelligence
  • Tap into insurance coverage expert guidance

Already have an account?
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].

 

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.