 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abdelaal v. Greens at Windy Hill, L.P., A07A0320.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, SECOND DIVISION, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in refusing to excuse a juror for cause under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-134 because the juror was acquainted with a defense witness, who worked at the dealership where the juror had his car serviced. Plaintiffs had not shown that the juror could not decide the case based on the evidence and the trial court's instructions.
|
|||||
| Dashtpeyma v. Wade, A07A0109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother was not vicariously liable under the family purpose doctrine of O.C.G.A. § 51-2-2 for an incident involving her minor son's car. Although insurance was in the name of the mother and the son's stepfather and title in the stepfather's name, the son had purchased the car with his own funds and paid for its upkeep, maintenance, and insurance.
|
|||||
| Holland v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., A07A0217.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an insured had not settled for the entire policy limit with a second motorist's insurer before seeking UM/UIM coverage from her own insurer, she was not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under O.C.G.A. § 33-24-41.1. The statute required a settlement for the full policy limits for exhaustion to have taken place.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of M.D.L., A07A0054,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A father's parental rights were properly terminated. The trial court had found that the father had neglected the children; he had made little or no progress on his plan, tested positive for drugs, spent time in jail, and failed to maintain stable housing and employment; and the children were thriving with foster parents who wished to adopt them.
|
|||||
| Martin v. State, A07A0905.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that the State was relying on the same facts to support burglary and theft by taking charges. The two charges were not based on the same facts, and even if one was included in the other as a matter of fact, defendant was not entitled to dismissal of either charge or to a limiting instruction.
|
|||||
| State v. Owens, A07A0328.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, SECOND DIVISION, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly suppressed contraband found in defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit omitted material information, including information relating to the sitter who took defendant's baby to the hospital and the fact that an officer had gone to defendant's home the day before without seeing any evidence of contraband.
|
|||||
| Valdez v. R. Constr., Inc., A07A0808.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, FOURTH DIVISION, May 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to dismiss appellant's complaint against a company based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. Appellant's previous complaint against the company had been terminated for want of prosecution, which was not an adjudication on the merits, and a counterclaim in the previous case had not adjudicated appellant's claim against the company.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
