 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Costello v. Bothers, A06A0259.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 9-2-61(a) applied only to actions that were valid before dismissal. To be valid action, the complaint must have been served personally on defendant. Where there was only service by publication, and no personal service, in initial suit, § 9-2-61(a) was inapplicable to later suit based on same accident, and later suit was time-barred.
|
|||||
| Doublette v. State, A06A0090.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In-court identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive where a detective did not tell the victim that the suspect was going to be in the courtroom on the day in question, and where, before allowing the victim to look into the courtroom, the detective made sure that defendant did not stand out among the other people in the courtroom.
|
|||||
| Dozier v. Pierce, A06A0684.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ properly affirmed a decision to suspend a driver's license, when, after being advised of his implied consent rights and of the consequences of refusing to submit to a state-administered breath test, the driver refused the test. Thus, given this evidence, the superior court erred in reversing the same and conducting a de novo hearing.
|
|||||
| Gilbert v. State, A06A0971.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support conviction of family violence battery, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23.1, where victim's brother saw defendant strike the victim, where defendant admitted striking victim, and where the trial court found victim's reddened face to have been harm capable of being perceived by a person, a police officer, other than the victim.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Georgia Power Co., A06A0599.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Utility was properly granted summary judgment in a cable installer's personal injury action, as it was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of its independent contractor and the installer was not injured as a result of blasting and excavating so as to render the utility liable under the Georgia Utility Facility Protection Act.
|
|||||
| Studiemeyer v. State, A06A0451.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if burglary victim had not testified that his checks were missing, an intent to steal may have been inferred since the evidence showed an unlawful entry into the building of another where valuable goods were kept. Trial court did not err in charging jury that it was allowed to "infer" an intent to steal in the context of burglary.
|
|||||
| Whittaker v. State, A06A0187. A06A0189. A06A0405.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers' testimony that breath test machines were functioning properly, had been inspected, that no pieces or components were missing, that they performed all required tests, and that they prepared the instruments in accordance with their training showed substantial compliance with required procedures, and admission of test results was proper.
|
|||||
| Wroge v. State, A06A0384.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under circumstances in which trial counsel testified that he discussed the advantages and disadvantages of waiving a jury with defendant and that he filed the waiver of jury trial form with defendant's understanding and consent, defendant failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient for advising him to pursue a bench trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
