 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Parks, A05A1992.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Term "landslide" in an insurance policy did not apply only to natural occurring events, when no such restriction was contained within the policy language and since, inter alia, other clauses listing perils insured against placed specific restrictions on broad terms. If there was any ambiguity, it was interpreted against the insurance company.
|
|||||
| Bunkley v. State, A06A0113. A06A0114.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: First defendant's counsel was not ineffective in failing to seek exclusion of second defendant's statement, as a matter of trial strategy, or seek suppression of his client's custodial statement, which was knowingly and voluntarily given. Further, aggravated assault charges did not merge with armed robbery or possession of a firearm charges.
|
|||||
| DOT v. Brannan, A05A2203.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's award to a landowner of just and adequate compensation of her land condemned by the DOT was upheld, after consideration of the landowner's expert's opinion regarding comparable sales, and there was no inference that the award was the result of gross mistake or undue bias.
|
|||||
| Henson v. Tucker, A05A1735.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on prescription and acquiescence grounds to the contestants to a tract of land without determining the validity or sufficiency of the legal descriptions of either deed to said property, as there was insufficient evidence of possession and support for prescriptive title.
|
|||||
| Ivey v. State, A06A0514.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant as a recidivist, as he had not begun to serve the non-recidivist sentence immediately after it was pronounced, but before the judge set the oral sentence aside, and even though the State did not provide certified copies of his earlier convictions prior to trial.
|
|||||
| Martin v. State, A06A0780.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated O.C.G.A. § 17-7-71(f) when it denied defendant's request for a continuance, as a disorderly conduct charge was an additional charge, charging a different crime with different elements than those crimes charged in the original accusation, and of which the State failed to give adequate pretrial notice.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. State, A05A1740.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if the trial court erred in compelling defendant's wife to testify concerning a similar transaction, such error was not reversible since there was no reasonable possibility of different verdict had defendant's wife not testified. Defendant was thus also unable to show that his lawyer's performance relating to this issue was ineffective.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, A06A0390.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where, inter alia, officer's testimony was impeached at suppression hearing, trial court was authorized to find that officer was not credible, that he failed to articulate reasonable suspicion for a second tier search under U.S. Const. amend. IV, and that putting his hand in defendant's pocket exceeded permissible scope of a pat-down search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
