 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Knott v. Evans, S06A0219.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court was not allowed to acknowledge verdict it previously but unnecessarily had submitted to a jury, implicitly accepting jury's findings, and then ignore that verdict without setting forth fact findings of its own to support its ruling. Facts accepted by trial court did not support permanent injunction imposed against property owners.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Owenby & Assocs., A06A0282.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer had no separate right to counterclaims asserted in prior suit since he had filed bankruptcy. Counterclaims belonged to bankruptcy estate, and so trustee was authorized to dismiss them. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40, res judicata barred buyer from asserting the same claims in later suit based on dismissal of the counterclaims in prior suit.
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, S06A0538.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statement that he had just been released from jail was integral part of res gestae and was admissible even though it put character in issue, so counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. Instructions as to limited use of conviction were given, and thus, failure to request limiting instruction had no effect on trial outcome.
|
|||||
| Moody v. State, A06A0278.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of kidnapping, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-40, was supported by sufficient evidence where, inter alia, victim testified that defendant forced her into his car at gunpoint, drove her to various locations, sexually assaulted her, and put her in his car trunk, even if the jury concluded that the victim initially was with defendant voluntarily.
|
|||||
| Moody v. State, A06A0729.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury could have interpreted testimony of victim's mother that she and victim lived in Heard County, Georgia, and that she lived in different trailer than one in which they lived when defendant molested victim in trailer to mean that victim's family had resided in Heard County at time of crime. Thus, sufficient evidence to prove venue was presented.
|
|||||
| Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors, S06A0487, S06A0568.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a citizen failed to show that the judgment in the first of his three cases arguing the same issue lacked either personal or subject matter jurisdiction, he failed to show that the judgment was void. Because the original judgment was not appealed, the citizen was not permitted to relitigate that issue in a later action.
|
|||||
| Oree v. State, S06A0269. S06A0270.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants' aggravated battery and the felony murder convictions were affirmed, as severance was unwarranted, showing the jury a portion of a movie depicting how the victim's body was disposed of was relevant as showing bent of mind, and although a separate indictee had a motive to kill the victim, exclusion of that evidence was harmless error.
|
|||||
| Pate v. Pate, S06F0326, S06X0438.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2(5), that the parties intended for child support to be based on the Child Support Guidelines and properly found that the father wilfully violated the settlement agreement when he substantially understated his gross income by assigning money he earned to his professional corporation.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, A06A0034.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delay was measured from remittitur to trial court on an earlier case because defendant's own actions in seeking multiple reviews prolonged resolution. Delay of two and a half months between remittitur and the scheduling of trial was not presumptively prejudicial and defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI right to a speedy trial was not violated.
|
|||||
| Rolland v. State, S06A0533.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's assertion that, under former O.C.G.A. § 17-8-71, his trial counsel could have called a witness for impeachment and not lost his right to conclude final arguments was erroneous. Even if defense counsel provided deficient performance, defendant failed to show reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
