 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In the Interest of J.R.R., S07A0085.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probate court's order declaring two provisions in the recently revised guardianship code, O.C.G.A. § 29-1-1 et seq., as unconstitutional was reversed, as a constitutional question was not raised by the pleadings or in any portion of the record. Hence, absent a proper attack, the court lacked the authority to strike the provisions down.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Johnson, S07Y0382.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon an attorney's violation of Ga. St. Bar R. 4-102(d):8.4(a)(4) and 3.3.(a)(4), which resulted in the filing of two separate disciplinary actions and the attorney's petitions for voluntary discipline, the court accepted a special master's recommendations for a 30-day suspension, two reprimands, and a refund of fees collected from two clients.
|
|||||
| Johnston v. Johnston, S07A0134.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a post-judgment divorce matter, a former wife's contempt motion was properly denied and she was properly denied any payment with regard to an equal split of the equity remaining in the marital home since the home was actually a mobile home, which was personal property, and the real estate was the husband's separate, non-marital property.
|
|||||
| Lonergan v. State, S06A1684.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's convictions for malice murder and other related crimes were supported by the evidence, the jury properly decided against a voluntary manslaughter verdict. Further, evidentiary issues did not warrant a mistrial, the State did not fail to preserve evidence, and no due process violation occurred by admitting cumulative evidence.
|
|||||
| Madison v. State, S06A1754.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Change in the number of defendant's peremptory challenges under the Criminal Justice Act, 2005 Ga. Laws 20, did not deprive him of any protected right by the application of the amended version of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-165. Further, his challenges to the closing arguments and admission of character evidence did not result in reversible error.
|
|||||
| McCreary v. Martin, S07A0137.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election waited too long to challenge that election, request a stay of the general election, or petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for expedition in entertaining his appeal, the mootness doctrine applied to said challenge requiring dismissal of said appeal.
|
|||||
| Mungin v. St. Lawrence, S07A0193.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the alleged failure of the State to comply with defendant's statutory demand for a speedy trial did not constitute an exception to the rule that pre-trial habeas corpus relief could not be predicated upon a claim which could be raised in the pending prosecution, his pre-trial habeas petition was properly dismissed without a hearing.
|
|||||
| Padron v. Padron, S06A1965.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Schofield v. Holsey, S06A1776, S06X1777.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, February 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate had not shown prejudice from trial counsel's alleged deficiency in preparing a possible defense that he was guilty but mentally retarded. Even if trial counsel had failed to provide a psychologist with certain records, the psychologist, after reviewing the records, had reaffirmed his original opinion that the inmate was not retarded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
