State v. Mayo

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a verbatim reading of the implied consent notice is not required
• insertion of the words “a” and “the” did not change the substance of the implied consent notice
• insertion of the words “a” and “the” did not change the substance of the implied consent notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Williams v. State
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2000-10-12· cited 21×
• Workman v. State
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1998-12-03· cited 10×
• State v. Fedrick
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2014-09-16· cited 2×
• State v. Shawn Frederick
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 2014-09-22

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Martin
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1996-02-12· cited 39×
• Helmeci v. State
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1998-03-02· cited 29×
• State v. Fielding
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1997-12-04· cited 12×
• State v. Halstead
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1998-01-15· cited 12×
• State v. Moncrief
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1998-10-26· cited 11×
• State v. Barfield
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1998-01-09· cited 7×