 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mathis v. Mathis, S07F0312.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's order equitably dividing the parties' marital property was upheld, given the conflicting evidence on the subject, which the trial court was within its province and discretion to resolve, and neither party requested the court to make factual findings regarding the division.
|
|||||
| McArthur Elec., Inc. v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., S07A0309.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a subcontractor on a school district's high school project had a remedy against the general contractor on the general contractor's performance bond under O.C.G.A. § 36-91-90, this legal remedy was adequate and under O.C.G.A. §§ 23-1-3 and 23-1-4 precluded the subcontractor from asserting an equitable lien against the school district.
|
|||||
| Orr v. Ga. Transmission Corp., S06G1952.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to hold that the date of taking property for electrical lines was the date of filing of the original condemnation petition. The date of taking was not governed by O.C.G.A. § 22-2-109, but by O.C.G.A. §§ 22-2-110 and 22-2-111; thus, the date of taking was when the amount provided in the award was paid into the trial court's registry.
|
|||||
| Peachstate Developers, LLC v. Greyfield Res., Inc., A06A2457.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit by a buyer against a seller for breach of a real property sales contract, it was error to find that time was of the essence under O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2. The contract did not contain such a provision, and the parties' conduct of extending the closing date after the designated date had passed did not show that time was of the essence.
|
|||||
| Pirkle v. Turner, S06A2017.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's award of fee simple title to a disputed parcel of land to an adjoining landowner was upheld on appeal, as a prior finding that the deeds relied upon by the neighbors was the law of the case, the jury was properly instructed as to the elements of adverse possession and laches, and a charge on equitable estoppel was not supported.
|
|||||
| Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, S06G0891.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an employee who lived in an employer-provided apartment was killed in an accident after delivering some family furniture to a storage shed, his child was entitled to workers' compensation benefits under the continuous employment doctrine. When the employee returned to the general proximity of the area where he was employed, coverage resumed.
|
|||||
| Warner v. State, S07A0051.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As no error resulted from excepting a prosecution witness from sequestration, the admission of certain recorded out-of-court statements by three witnesses and one of the co-defendants, and the jury charge on impeachment, defendant's felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony convictions were upheld on appeal.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, S06A1922.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State adequately showed the connection between the murder of one victim, and the murder charged in the instant proceeding, specifically, that the killing of the victim in the instant proceeding was committed to prevent evidence from being introduced against defendant in the first killing, the similar transaction was properly allowed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
