 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlisle v. State, A06A0582.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and crack pipes found during an inventory search of his car was properly denied, as the police impound was not unlawful, waiting a reasonable time prior to having the car towed was not unreasonable as a matter of law, and officers were not required to call defendant's relatives first.
|
|||||
| City of Cairo v. Hightower Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., A05A2352. A05A2353.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because city did not seek to exclude, by pretrial motion or by timely trial objection, liability limit provision of contract between it and an engineering firm, it failed to properly except to jury's consideration of clause, and so it waived appellate review of issue of whether that clause should have been presented for jury's consideration.
|
|||||
| Dempsey v. Kaminski Jewelry, Inc., A05A2142.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no blanket Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions in civil proceedings. Where there was no transcript of the hearing at which a trial court made its finding that the privilege was not implicated, the appellate court presumed that the evidence supported the trial court's finding and order compelling discovery.
|
|||||
| Effingham County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Samwilka, Inc., A05A1790.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation was properly granted summary judgment, as approval of preferential ad valorem tax treatment for property co-owned by the shareholders of the corporation by a tenancy in common did not violate O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.4(b)(3), as an individual's benefit was to be determined on a pro-rata basis.
|
|||||
| Haskins v. Haskins, A05A1604.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1302(b) was exclusive remedy for dispute about price of stock. Where stockholder did not show how his injuries were separate and apart from those of other shareholders, he was not allowed to bring suit for damages arising from a reverse stock split. Since he had redeemed his shares, he lacked standing to bring derivative suit.
|
|||||
| Jefferson v. State, A06A0601.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate an illegal sentence, despite his claim that he was punished as a recidivist, as nothing supported his argument that he received an enhanced punishment based on an uncertified, non-final disposition from the State of Louisiana.
|
|||||
| Sampson v. Haywire Ventures, Inc., A06A0103.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the basis for director's counterclaim for conversion of stock did not occur until after he filed his answer, that claim matured after the answer was filed, and thus it was a permissive, not compulsory counterclaim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-13(e). Trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaim with prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, A05A1574.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, March 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a bag that resulted in the discovery of contraband, the trial court erroneously granted his motion to suppress. Although he possessed it for a few seconds, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Further, the stop which led to the seizure, as a first tier encounter, was reasonable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
