 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In the Interest of K.A.S., A06A0508.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination order under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-94 was supported by sufficient evidence that, inter alia, the mother never obtained stable, legal income or stable housing, although she had almost two years to meet these reunification case plan goals. The mother also failed to address marital instability and follow psychological recommendations.
|
|||||
| Olubajo v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., A06A1358.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the appellant seeking review of a writ of possession, a resident had the burden to affirmatively show error by the record. Since the resident failed to file a transcript and did not try to reconstruct the transcript, the resident failed to show error, and the appellate court presumed the judgment granting a bank a writ of possession was correct.
|
|||||
| R.O.C. v. Estate of Bryant, A06A1096.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a consequence of a defense verdict as to the underlying alleged tort, a mother no longer had a claim under former O.C.G.A. § 18-2-22 for fraudulent conveyance, as she was no longer characterized as one of the "others" with standing to contest the conveyance. Accordingly, her fraudulent conveyance claim necessarily failed.
|
|||||
| All Bus. Corp. v. Choi, A06A0295.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was properly granted summary judgment in an action by a creditor of a client's business that the attorney acted as the escrow agent for, as there was no breach of trust or conversion of funds where the security interest filed by the creditor was not perfected because it was not under the proper name of the debtor.
|
|||||
| Gill v. Prehistoric Ponds, Inc., A06A0461.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an employee of an alligator farm was not a "farm laborer" within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 34-9-2(a) because the alligator farm that he was employed at was not a "farm" as that term was used within the Workers' Compensation Act, the employer was not exempted from the Act's coverage.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, A06A0657.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's admission of similar transaction evidence in defendant's criminal trial was not error, as all three prongs of the Williams test were satisfied; the evidence was admissible to show modus operandi and course of conduct, defendant's identity from the prior offense was shown, and the crimes were sufficiently similar.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of M.T.H., A06A0440.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When termination of parental rights of a mother with Huntington's disease was sought, under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-94, the mother did not show a conflict between the reports of two neurologists which justified granting her additional time to comply with her treatment plan, and clear and convincing evidence supported termination of her parental rights.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, A06A1117.,
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's recharge on aggravated assault was not error in defendant's criminal trial, as it was based on only that part of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-21 that related to the allegations of the indictment; neither the charge nor recharge authorized a conviction in a manner other than that alleged in the indictment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
