 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knapp v. Cross, A06A0119, A06A0697.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a property owner was not provided with notice of the contempt allegations against him prior to a hearing on the matter, the finding that he was in criminal contempt for violating a six-month protective order in favor of his neighbors was a violation of the owner's due process rights.
|
|||||
| Liles v. Innerwork, Inc., A06A0239.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted for organizer of a team-building activity in a participant's suit to recover for injuries she sustained during activity because the participant voluntarily engaged in the activity knowing that she risked injury from falling, in that her testimony established that she understood that there was a risk of falling.
|
|||||
| Lyttle v. State, A06A1015.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of defendant's suppression motion was error under U.S. Const. amend. IV, as a police officer's stop of defendant's vehicle was only based on his generalized suspicion and there was no particularized and objective basis for suspecting that defendant was involved in criminal activity sufficient to justify an investigatory stop.
|
|||||
| Southern Gen. Ins. Co. v. Foy, A06A0509.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that mother was not a resident of her son's household was proper since the uncontroverted proof showed that, while the two lived together, they maintained distinct households under different management: they each were responsible for separate parts of the house, they did not cook or clean for each other, and the came and went independently.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. State, A06A0450.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the term of court when defendant was sentenced had expired, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, because he failed to show that he received a punishment that the law did not allow, his motion to modify said sentence was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Villagomez v. State, A06A0772.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated assault conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. While defendant was acquitted of certain crimes, conviction was not improper on ground that it was based on evidence of some crimes of which he was acquitted. Defendant's argument was really inconsistent verdict argument, and rule against inconsistent verdicts had been abolished.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, A06A0933.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of burglary, O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1, was supported by sufficient evidence, including neighbor's eyewitness testimony, discovery of business card from defendant's probation officer at victim's home, with time and date of defendant's next appointment written on it, and discovery of stolen property at place where defendant was residing.
|
|||||
| Williams v. State, A06A0593.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of defendant's extraordinary motion to set aside his plea of guilty to misdemeanor obstruction of a law enforcement officer, which was treated as a motion to withdraw the plea, was proper where the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and no manifest injustice was shown, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7-93(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
