 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Harden v. Johnson, S06A0425.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In denying appellant's habeas petition, which alleged that counsel was ineffective relating to his guilty plea, trial court erroneously focused entirely on appellant's statements of satisfaction with his representation and his failure to complain about it at sentencing. That evidence was irrelevant in determining ineffective assistance claim.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of G.S., A06A0283.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because evidence concerning the amount of support the mother provided became irrelevant once she regained custody, a new deprivation hearing was not held once this took place, and evidence was presented that she had taken steps to care for the child's needs, a deprivation finding was reversed, as not supported by the evidence.
|
|||||
| Karan, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., S05G1259.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals erred in holding that insureds were estopped from asserting compliance with insurer's policy provisions regarding notice, and erred, on that basis, in reversing the denial of summary judgment to the insurer in its declaratory judgment action.
|
|||||
| Ray v. Jolles, S06A0344.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under O.C.G.A. § 53-6-30(a), probate court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction, nor did it act in excess of its authority in appointing temporary administrator for estate as, since former administrator was removed, his authority to act for estate was suspended, and, thus, estate was unrepresented while appeal of removal order was pending.
|
|||||
| Sauerwein v. State, S06A0089.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's statement to jury in felony murder and cruelty to children trial regarding child victim's teething did not violate O.C.G.A. § 17-8-57 since fact of child's teething was undisputed. Sufficient evidence supported convictions where defendant admitting striking child and bruises on child next day had not been there prior evening.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, S06A0586.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-2-20(a), sufficient evidence supported convictions arising from defendant's participation in a robbery where, knowing that her cousin was going to commit robbery, defendant voluntarily went with him, saw that he had a gun, agreed to "stand over" scene, and joined him in using the victim's credit cards afterwards.
|
|||||
| Shields v. Gish, S06A0212.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-8(d) allegations of an amended complaint were deemed denied by operation of law, and caselaw to the contrary was overruled. A trial court erred in holding that defendant was required to answer an amended complaint to avoid a default and in defaulting defendant upon a failure to answer an amended complaint.
|
|||||
| State v. Fielden, S06A0282. S06A0283.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-34(a) was overbroad and was unconstitutional. The literal language of the statute was so overbroad in its scope that it led to an absurdity manifestly not intended by the legislature, and its constitutionality could not have been preserved by judicial construction.
|
|||||
| Ward v. Morgan, S06A0606.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to renew probate action invalidated will, and so heirs were entitled to intestate interest in property. Heirs were entitled to summary judgment where co-tenant failed to establish conflict with heirs' affidavit which averred, inter alia, that co-tenant took no action to oust heirs, or to give actual notice of adverse possession.
|
|||||
| Waters v. Waters, S06F0071.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, April 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact that, with one exception, the trial court in a divorce action awarded the real property and personalty in New Zealand to the wife, and the real property, personalty, and business in Georgia to the husband, in an attempt to leave the parties as entangled as little as possible, did not mean that the division of property was not equitable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
