 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adcock v. State, A06A0342.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under O.C.G.A. § 16-1-7(a), all crimes arising from the same criminal conduct are included in the major crime for which defendant was convicted, and are vacated as a matter of law. Trial court erred in convicting and sentencing defendant for both aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with the intent to rob.
|
|||||
| Baxley v. Baldwin, A06A0411.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(e), affidavits containing bare conclusions that were not supported by facts or based on personal knowledge were properly stricken. Finding that there was no admissible evidence of owner's wilful concealment and order dismissing the case due to lack of personal service within limitations period were also proper.
|
|||||
| In re Otuonye, A06A0075.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was properly found in criminal contempt, and disallowed to seek payment from the county for his legal services to two indigent defendants, as he failed to appear in court as commanded, provided no notice of a scheduling conflict, and failed to show that he made any attempt to comply with Ga. Unif. St. Ct. R. 17.1.
|
|||||
| Keith v. State, A06A0047.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child molestation and cruelty to children convictions were supported by sufficient evidence presented via the victim's testimony, supporting the denial of his acquittal motion. Further, his challenge to the indictment was untimely, his statement was properly admitted, and he failed to prove prejudice by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.
|
|||||
| Mayo v. Head, S06A0549.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizen did not have a judicially cognizable interest in prosecution or non-prosecution of another and, hence, lacked standing to contest prosecuting authority's policies when citizen was neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. Petition seeking mandamus to compel prosecutor to bring criminal perjury charge was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Mobley v. State, A06A0395.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant made no attempt to take victim's purse or keys and since he had pornographic photos of a woman who looked similar to victim, a jury was authorized to find that defendant had intent to detain, abduct, and rape the victim as charged and to convict defendant of aggravated assault with intent to rape, O.C.G.A. § 16-5-21(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Northwest Carpets, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank, S06A0044.,
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a holder of a security deed could no longer claim any legal title to the subject property once the underlying debt thereto was paid, no evidence of valid renewal or extension of the note existed, and it lacked standing to challenge any foreclosure on the debt, summary judgment was properly entered against it.
|
|||||
| Sego v. State, A06A0417, A06A0727.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress, as a consent to search was warranted, even without an articulable suspicion of criminal activity, given that officers were in an area known for drug activity; individuals in that area turned and walked away once they saw police; and defendant's passenger appeared to swallow a crack rock.
|
|||||
| Vaughan v. State, A06A0702.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, May 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since officers knew defendant was armed and considered dangerous, since officers learned that defendant had a machete and knives on his person, and since defendant was nervous and moving around during an officer's pat down search, officers did not exceed permissible scope of pat down by opening a box found on defendant's person during pat down.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
