 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Briglevich v. Liberty House Rest. Corp., A05A2002.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Georgia trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony that did not directly implicate subsequent remedial measures or in initially excluding testimony of earlier slip and fall victims, since plaintiff had not originally alleged a slip and fall had occurred.
|
|||||
| Corbett v. State, A05A1635.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite defendant's claims that officers' statements were insufficient to prove that his BAC was .08 grams or more, defendant stipulated that the Intoxilyzers used were "used to measure the blood alcohol content" of his body, and both officers also read into evidence their implied consent cards which included the language ".08 grams."
|
|||||
| Freeman v. Wheeler, A05A1632.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff unsuccessfully asserted in claim for attorney fees and costs under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 that peer review privilege under O.C.G.A. § 31-7-133(a) was improperly asserted and where he asserted same claim against same parties in abusive litigation action under O.C.G.A. § 51-7-80 et seq., latter action was barred by collateral estoppel.
|
|||||
| Gibson v. Symbion, Inc., A05A2048.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record was devoid of any evidence to show that a handicap ramp was improperly designed or constructed, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, a company had no duty to an invitee; consequently, the company was entitled to summary judgment in the invitee's action for slip and fall damages.
|
|||||
| Harvey v. State, A05A2301.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was insufficient to convict of failure to report an accident pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-6-273, where only witness to estimate cost of damages incurred in skidding into a ditch was defendant, and he testified to the belief that they did not reach the $ 500 threshold.
|
|||||
| Pinkston v. State, A05A1855.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant intentionally punched one officer trying to arrest him for domestic violence and somehow hit another with his elbow was sufficient to support conviction of felony obstruction of an officer violating O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24. Counsel ineffectiveness allegations required further development on remand.
|
|||||
| Cohen v. Allstate Ins. Co., A05A1986.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly dismissed claims by injured parties against a driver, as the injured parties failed to serve process on the injured party within the statute of limitations, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, and the injured parties failed to show that they acted with due diligence in attempting to effect service.
|
|||||
| Ford v. Bank of Am. Corp., A05A2063.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted, dismissing a customer's suit to recover for injuries she sustained when a chair rolled out from under her as she was sitting down into it, because the customer failed to establish the existence of a dangerous condition. She simply testified that the chair was defective because it slid out from under her.
|
|||||
| Paige v. State, A05A1765.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly declined to suppress identification testimony as the fact that the victim was shown a picture of defendant by a private citizen before identifying him in a lineup did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no state action, which was a prerequisite for a due process violation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
