 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Gerlock v. State, A06A2230.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that the marijuana found in defendant's vehicle was packaged in 17 small zip-lock bags, commonly known as a dime bags and used for the purchase and selling of marijuana, and no evidence was presented connecting any other person to their possession, defendant's possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was upheld on appeal.
|
|||||
| Glanton v. State, A06A2231.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the plain meaning of the statute, because O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56 defined the offense of riot in a penal institution without including any element of concerted action or reference to the general offense of riot, the fact that defendant acted alone was insufficient to reverse his conviction for the same.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. State, S06A2045.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant, who had alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, appealed from the denial of his motion for a new trial, but directed that the transcript of the hearing on the motion be omitted from the record, the appellate court had to presume that the trial court was authorized to find that defendant had not shown ineffective assistance.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. State, S06A1712.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A.§ 16-9-21 expressly prohibited improper access of another's account at a financial institution such that defendant was placed on notice that his use of a victim's social security number to obtain a job and thus access the victim's IRS account was illegal; thus, § 16-9-121 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of D.L.T., A06A1866.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating a mother's parental rights was upheld on appeal, despite her assertions of sudden parental fitness, as the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that she was unable to provide for the child, her mental health issues might never be resolved, and she failed to make any significant progress towards reunification.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Halcomb, S07Y0110.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Pronk, S07Y0147.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Lawton v. State, S06A1541.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon were upheld on appeal where the evidence, as a matter of law, supported the conviction because defendant failed to show any infirmity in the witness identifications of him as the shooter and credibility determinations were within the province of the jury.
|
|||||
| Lillard v. Owens, S06A2034.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to find that a testator lacked testimony capacity under O.C.G.A. § 53-4-11 when he executed a new will. There was evidence that he was taking medication that could impair mental performance; that two days before executing the will, he appeared impaired; and that on the day the will was executed, he appeared "morphined up."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
