 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amis v. State, A05A1745.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cruelty to children convictions were not inconsistent with an acquittal on a family battery charge, as testimony and a prior inconsistent statement supported the same. Further, defendant waived the right to contest a jury charge on a cruelty to children count by failing to object or reserve objection at the conclusion of the jury instructions.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of A.J.I., A05A2242. A05A2243.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court erred in finding that two children were deprived under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(8)(A) as one child's appointment with a therapist was missed due to transportation issues and was not timely rescheduled because the mother did not have a telephone and there was no evidence that the mother's occasional drug use adversely affected the children.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, A05A2176.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a juror stated that despite her personal feelings, she would try her best to remain fair and impartial, defendant's challenge for cause was properly denied. Further, absent a timely suppression motion, defendant waived any right to claim that the evidence seized, as well as the testimony describing the same, was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
|
|||||
| Yun v. Um, A05A1629.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Remand was ordered when, absent any evidence that a partnership was formed, and the failure to satisfy O.C.G.A. § 14-8-8, the trial court erred in finding the existence of a partnership between a business owner and his alleged partner. Further, without a valid settlement between the two, the court also erred in finding an accord and satisfaction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
