 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allen v. Wright, S06G2018,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice suit, a reviewing court upheld a trial court ruling that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-9.2 was preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) since § 9-11-9.2 was less stringent and did not comply with the requirements of HIPAA as to notice of the right to revoke.
|
|||||
| Duty Free Air & Ship Supply Co./Franklin Wilson Airport Concession, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, S07A0265,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the Georgia legislature's explicitly stated intention in the Georgia Local Government Public Works Construction Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-91-1 et seq., mandamus could not compel a mayor's discretionary act of choosing to sign a prepared public contract resulting from a competitive sealed proposal process.
|
|||||
| Glenn v. State, S07A0079. S07A0080.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because both defendants, as in-state lenders, were not similarly situated with out-of-state banks designated in O.C.G.A. § 16-17-2(a)(3), and hence were subject to state regulation, and the prohibition against payday loans was sufficiently definite to satisfy due process standards, their equal protection and vagueness challenges lacked merit.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of C.S., S06G1802,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an out-of-state incarcerated father was not personally served under the requirements under O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-96(c) and 9-11-4 with a termination petition and summons, and service of the same by certified mail was insufficient, an order terminating his parental rights was reversed. Further, O.C.G.A. § 15-11-39.1 did not apply.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Judah, S07Y1068.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After having complied with the conditions set out in the court's prior suspension order, agreeing to attend the next available Ethics School offered by the State Bar, and agreeing to notify the Office of General Counsel if he was ever found unfit to practice law, an attorney's petition for reinstatement was accepted.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Walker, S07Y0594.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's third petition seeking voluntary discipline requesting a 120-day suspension and a public reprimand was accepted over the State's objection, as the attorney had no intent to deceive the IRS in failing to report $ 700.00 in income, and she had already pled guilty to the offense and paid the taxes and penalties resulting from the same.
|
|||||
| Jacob v. Koslow, S07A0517.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent a petition to modify the original divorce decree, because a contempt motion had to be filed in the court which rendered the judgment or order in question, the trial court erred in denying a husband's motion for judgment on the pleadings, or for a change of venue to the court that rendered the original judgment of divorce.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, S07A0509.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's convictions were supported by his confession and expert medical testimony, he received ample notice of the specific deadly weapon he allegedly used for purposes of the felony murder charge, and he failed to show his counsel's ineffectiveness and was not entitled to a presumption of prejudice, he was properly denied a new trial.
|
|||||
| Kelly v. Dawson County, S07A0506,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
