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.
	State Courts - Georgia - January 18, 2006
	Cochran v. State, A05A1700., COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 18, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Whether defendant acted in self-defense was for jury to resolve. Sufficient evidence supported aggravated assault conviction. Since case was not capital case or one where trial judge intimated opinion of defendant's guilt, plain error doctrine did not apply, and failure to object to prosecutor's comment in closing waived that argument on appeal. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Gordon v. State, A05A1580., COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 18, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Marijuana patch was not within curtilage of defendant's home where patch was between 30 feet and 30 yards from house, no fences or enclosures surrounded the patch and the home, and officers had legally viewed the patch from the air and knew before entering the area that it was used to grow marijuana and not for an intimate domestic activity. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Reed v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., A05A1933., COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 18, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Based on injured person's testimony that he had no prior shoulder problems and surgeon's testimony that he found no pre-existing shoulder conditions, jury could have found that injured person had no prior "shoulder problems" for purposes of hypothetical questions asked of surgeon, and trial court erred in sustaining objections to the questions. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   Copyright© 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.