 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Prince v. Esposito, A05A2012.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suit alleging that chiropractor committed battery against patient during chiropractic treatment was properly dismissed on summary judgment. Evidence showed that patient consented to touching at issue by consenting to adjustment. Patient did not point to any evidence that chiropractor performed any procedure other than adjustment on day in question.
|
|||||
| Waddell v. State, A05A1961.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no evidence to support jury charge on O.C.G.A. § 16-2-20(b)(2), (4), and contrary to defendant's contention, failure to charge on these subsections was proper. Contents of an officer's investigative report were inadmissible and trial court properly sustained objection to defense counsel's referring in closing to report's contents.
|
|||||
| Ward v. State, A05A2288.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, February 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since officer was still in possession of defendant's driver's license, she did not feel free to leave when the officer asked her to exit her vehicle, and thus the contact was second-tier encounter. Officer had no reason to suspect criminal activity, so detention was wrongful, and defendant's consent to pat down did not validate the search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
