 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brewer v. Harvey, A06A0831.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in apportioning wrongful death settlement proceeds concerning father and mother's deceased child, granting the father 20 percent of the same, as during a significant portion of the child's life, the father was incarcerated and used methamphetamine, and the mother had primary custody and control of the child.
|
|||||
| Carson v. State, A06A0793.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: DUI roadblock was proper under U.S. Const. amend. IV where the decision to set it up was made by a supervisory officer who also approved time and place, roadblock served a legitimate purpose, all vehicles were stopped, screening officer had prior training and experience, delay to motorists was minimal, and the roadblock was well-identified.
|
|||||
| Corbett v. Corbett, S06F0328.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where antenuptial agreement failed to disclose husband's income and wife waived her right to alimony as part of agreement, husband's income was material to the antenuptial agreement and would have been critical factor in wife's decision to waive alimony, and thus trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the agreement unenforceable.
|
|||||
| Daniels v. State, S05A1863.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of audio tape of wife's out-of-court interview violated U.S. Const. amend. VI. However, content of wife's speech was barely discernible on tape, and any of wife's statements that were audible were cumulative of other testimony. Thus, there was no reasonable possibility that tape contributed to convictions, and error was harmless.
|
|||||
| Devito v. Devito, S06A0341.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62(a) did not violate Ga. Const. art. VI, § II, para. VI. Trial court correctly ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction over father's post-decree child custody modification action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62 and that personal jurisdiction over mother was unnecessary in order for it to address the requested modification.
|
|||||
| Fortson v. State, S05A1559.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Malice murder and attempted arson convictions were affirmed, as the evidence presented against defendant showed that the latter was inextricably linked to the former, allowing the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty.
|
|||||
| Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, S06A0049.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 36-1-16(a) was unconstitutional because it impaired interstate commerce by improperly giving Georgia counties the power to veto the importation of solid waste.
|
|||||
| Grimes v. State, S06A0276.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's murder and armed robbery convictions, similar transactions were properly admitted to show motive and bent of mind, neither severance or bifurcation was required, alleged hearsay fit under the necessity exception, and evidence seized via a valid search warrant was properly admitted.
|
|||||
| In re Liles, A06A0412.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where juvenile protective order required father to bring his son to the son's probation officer as required by the officer, and did not limit the number of visits, sufficient evidence supported a contempt finding against the father based on the father's decision to forgo a meeting requested by the probation officer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
