 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| A & H Sod, Inc. v. Johnson, A06A1036.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the owners of property seeking to have past years tax valuations declared null and void had already paid the taxes for the years in question, an action for declaratory judgment, which necessarily looked to the future, did not lie.
|
|||||
| David v. State, A06A0612, A06A0613.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Question on motion to withdraw guilty plea was not whether the trial court followed the letter of Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 33.8 but if record as a whole affirmatively showed that plea was knowing and voluntary. Under circumstances, including plea form signed by defendant, trial court was entitled to find that pleas were knowing and voluntary.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, A06A0132.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, among other things, the child victim's language and vocabulary were generally within normal range, since she did not appear to have been coached, and since her out-of-court statements were detailed and consistent, admission of her videotaped statement was proper under O.C.G.A. § 24-3-16.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Ballard, S06Y0638, S06Y0639, S06Y0640, S06Y0641, S06Y0642, S06Y0643.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was disbarred for misconduct which included misappropriating funds of clients totaling over $ 435,000, lying to clients and others, presenting false documents to clients and others, writing non-sufficient trust account checks, dismissing a case without client's consent, and failing to file an answer, leading to default against a client.
|
|||||
| In the Matter of Brown, S06Y0542.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney made payments on his personal MasterCard account from his trust account without ever restoring the money, merely blaming his secretary, and never took any action to ensure the proper handling of his client's funds, given his prior disciplinary record, his disbarment, and not a further reprimand, was warranted.
|
|||||
| James v. Davis, S06A0293.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an ALJ did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of a driver's habitual violator status, his ruling that the driver was wrongfully declared an habitual violator was not binding on the parties. Hence, he was not entitled to mandamus relief requiring the Commission of the Department of Vehicle Services to issue him his driver's license.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Fayette County, S06A0160.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: O.C.G.A. § 36-8-1(b)(1) referendum requirement was inapplicable to a county which created a county police force before January 1, 1992, which remained in existence and operational. However, fact issues remained, and summary judgment was improper, where affidavits claimed that county marshals did not operate as a county police force.
|
|||||
| Mays v. Ed Voyles Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., S06A0691.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Cos., S05G1629.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Non-solicitation covenant between a group of employees and their former employer was erroneously declared unenforceable merely because it provided no time restriction on the provision of services to the former employer's customers, as it was narrowly limited to those customers served by the employees during their terms of employment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
