 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| GMAC Mortg. Corp. v. Bongiorno, A06A0053.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court obtained jurisdiction over a mortgagee where the wrongful foreclosure complaint was served on the mortgagee's office manager at a branch office, rather than by service on the registered agent, as the manager was authorized to accept service pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-4 and 14-2-1510; a motion to open default was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Leppla v. State, A05A1999.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State failed to sufficiently prove the asportation element of kidnapping, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-40(a), it was error to deny defendant's motion for a directed verdict and to convict him of that offense; there was an insufficient showing of movement to satisfy that element where the victim was merely pushed to the ground.
|
|||||
| Portee v. State of Ga., A05A1937.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly struck a vehicle owner's answer in a civil in rem forfeiture action by the State pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-13-49(o)(3), as the answer filed by the owner did not meet the specific statutory pleading requirements and it was not verified; accordingly, the 60-day hearing requirement under § 16-13-49(o)(5) was not applicable.
|
|||||
| Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. BellSouth Telcoms., Inc., A05A1599.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in finding that an employer was obligated to indemnify a company for an injury sustained by an employee while at the company's facility, as the contract between the employer and the company did not expressly hold the company harmless for claims arising from its sole negligence; the indemnity provision was unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Smith v. State, A05A1930.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant provided neither enumerations of error nor arguments challenging the propriety of the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss with prejudice three outstanding warrants on the grounds that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, he waived any such argument for purposes of the appeal, Ga. Ct. App. R. 25.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. State, A05A2027.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict against defendant on a charge of aggravated assault, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-21(a)(2), as his firing of a gun into a crowded parking lot and in the victim's direction indicated the requisite intent to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate violent injury.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. Lipman, A05A2062.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56, was improperly granted to attorney on his claim to recover legal fees from executrix in an amount based on a settlement offer received in a suit because there was an issue of fact as to whether the attorney had communicated any settlement offers to decedent, which was implied condition of contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
