 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blackwood v. State, A05A2120.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31(e), was supported by the evidence where the drugs weighed the requisite amount and there was evidence that defendant helped with the sale by cutting, weighing, and packaging them; a co-defendant's testimony to the contrary was deemed not credible.
|
|||||
| Farley v. Hawkins, A06A0214.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a biological father who appealed the termination of his parental rights over his children in favor of adoptive parents, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-8-10(a), failed to provide a transcript of the trial court proceedings, the appellate court assumed the evidence supported the trial court's findings.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. State, A06A0226.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's dismissal motion, as his constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated by a 34-month delay where no bad faith by the State was shown, defendant did not assert the right, and he failed to show that he was prejudiced and that his defense was impaired.
|
|||||
| Green v. State, A05A2052.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for theft by receiving stolen property, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-7(a), where he was hidden in an abandoned residence, he had the car keys to a stolen vehicle, and the license plate tag was registered in his name; possession and knowledge that the vehicle was stolen were shown.
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, A06A0761.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, before entering his guilty plea, defendant was represented by appointed counsel, and had sworn that he, inter alia, had fully discussed his case with his lawyer, it was implausible that defendant did not understand that his attorney would have represented him throughout trial, and that he gave up that representation by entering plea.
|
|||||
| Sani-Agri Servs. v. City of Albany, A05A2323.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an agent's complaint against a city arose out of the parties' roles in a sludge disposal program and because the agent forewent an opportunity to file a permissive cross-claim in a prior litigation, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40, res judicata barred the agent from bringing the claims in a subsequent action.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, A06A0027.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant used his father's social security number on a loan application, which resulted in his obtaining a check that was used to purchase a vehicle, he was guilty of theft by deception, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-3; the document he received was a check within the definition of O.C.G.A. § 11-3-104(f)(i).
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, A06A0240.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant indicated that he understood his Miranda rights and his waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made, suppression of his custodial statement was properly denied; the fact that defendant was possibly under the influence of a chemical agent, on its own, was not enough to require suppression of the confession.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
