 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Andrew, Merritt, Reilly & Smith, LLP v. Remote Accounting Solutions, Inc., A05A2222.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Litigator was subject to trial court's sanctions concerning case in which he had been involved, whether or not he and his firm had already withdrawn in that particular litigation at time of finding under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14. Trial court's findings were sufficiently specific to support award of attorneys fees against law firm for frivolous suit.
|
|||||
| Bayless v. Bayless, S05F1953.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court was within its authority to strike the husband's answer and counterclaim and to bar the presentation of his evidence since the husband failed to personally appear throughout the litigation and disregarded multiple orders.
|
|||||
| Camp v. Coweta County, S05G0892.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While mailing a copy of the complaint against the State of Georgia to the Attorney General was not necessary to perfect service, a plaintiff should be allowed to cure a defect in his compliance with the mailing requirement so long as the delay in providing a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General did not cause prejudice to the State.
|
|||||
| Carter v. State, A05A1819.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's counsel did not object to jury instructions by a trial court, any error therein was waived for purposes of appeal; however, an instruction that the jury could consider incidents at a jail as to defendant's state of mind was not an instruction on flight, and there was no violation of the Renner rule.
|
|||||
| Collier v. State, S05A1958.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Outburst by defense counsel during closing argument did not warrant reversal of conviction where trial court controlled proceedings, maintained dignity of courtroom, and gave curative instruction for jury to not consider counsels' disruptive conduct. Nothing suggested that, but for this isolated incident, outcome would have been different.
|
|||||
| Columbus Transmission Co. v. Murry, A05A2209.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The sole shareholder of an incorporated motor vehicle repair business was bound by the corporate form he had selected; therefore, he could not represent the business in a dissatisfied customer's action--only an attorney could. Without an attorney, the answer submitted by the shareholder was properly stricken and default properly entered.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Fraser, S06Y0306.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Norton, S05Y0741.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Paine, S06Y0510.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, January 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was suspended until termination of probation, but not for a period shorter than 20 months, where the lawyer pled guilty to felony obstruction of a federal audit. While the lawyer posed no danger, public was likely to lose respect for legal system if any lawyer was allowed to practice law while on probation for criminal conviction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
