John Sammons Bell

This case involved a libel lawsuit brought by a newspaper editor against the newspaper and its managing editor over an opinion column titled "An Apology is in Order" that criticized the editor for including what the column called "gratuitous editorializing" in a front-page story and referred to the newspaper staff as "turkeys." The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the pleadings, finding no defamation as a matter of law. The appellate court reversed, holding that the column was susceptible to a defamatory meaning by innuendo because the term "turkey" can imply ineptitude and the plaintiff was involved in assembling the paper. The court further noted that the undeveloped record left open questions about whether the statements were privileged and whether the plaintiff qualified as a public figure.

torts & liabilityfree speech

The case concerned a defendant's conviction for motor vehicle homicide based on driving under the influence of alcohol that caused another person's death in a three-car collision. The appellate court reviewed challenges to the admission of blood test results from both the victim and the defendant, as well as the trial court's handling of jury instructions on the lesser included offense of driving under the influence. The court determined that the blood tests were properly admitted into evidence. However, it reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence raised the lesser offense as an alternative verdict and that the trial court committed harmful error by first promising to instruct the jury on it, allowing defense counsel to argue accordingly, and then refusing to give the charge.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a bank's suit to recover principal, interest, and attorney fees on an allegedly unpaid promissory note originally issued to another bank that the plaintiff claimed to have succeeded. The defendant denied the note's execution and validity and raised defenses including usury, but failed to respond to requests for admissions. The trial court excluded a photocopy of the succession agreement and related documents for lack of foundation and granted the defendant's motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. The appellate court reversed, holding that the admissions were not properly introduced as evidence and that the photocopy was admissible under Code § 38-710 without the additional foundation demanded by the trial court, rendering the exclusion of the note and other documents harmful error.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a counterclaim for defamation filed by defendant Larry Garrett after being named in a personal injury complaint arising from an automobile collision. The plaintiff alleged Garrett owned the vehicle, provided it for family use under the family purpose doctrine, and that his son negligently entrusted it to an intoxicated driver with a history of accidents. Garrett denied ownership and familial ties, claimed the allegations harmed his reputation as a law enforcement officer when publicized, and asserted a libel claim. After the plaintiff dismissed her complaint against him and moved for summary judgment on the counterclaim, the trial court granted the motion, which was affirmed on appeal. The court held that allegations in pleadings in a court of competent jurisdiction are privileged and not libelous if pertinent and material to the relief sought, even if false and malicious.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Area v. Cagle, the executors of C. J. Bowers' estate sued the defendant on three unpaid promissory notes that the defendant admitted executing. The defendant raised a defense based on an alleged oral agreement that the debt would be discharged if Bowers died before repayment, supported by affidavits. The trial court overruled the plaintiffs' objection to this evidence and granted summary judgment to the defendant while denying the plaintiffs' motion. The appellate court held that objections to the affidavits were timely, that the parol evidence was inadmissible under Georgia law as it varied the terms of the written notes, and that without a valid defense the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment. The court reversed the trial court's rulings and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case Cherry v. State involved a defendant's appeal from his conviction on two counts of aggravated battery. The court held that the defendant's testimony denying a prior felony conviction involving moral turpitude did not warrant a jury instruction on good character, as such a charge requires evidence of general reputation rather than a specific denial. Additionally, the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a defendant who pleaded nolo contendere to simple battery in 1971 and was sentenced in 1973 to a fine and a suspended 12-month term conditioned on paying the victim's medical bills, which he satisfied without appealing at the time. Nearly five years later, he filed a motion to vacate and expunge the conviction, which the trial court denied, prompting this appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as untimely under the 30-day statutory deadline for filing a notice of appeal, noting that the motion did not toll that period. The court also dismissed on grounds of mootness, as the sentence had been fully served with no shown adverse collateral consequences.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal from a juvenile court order terminating the parental rights of a mother over her four children, who had been placed in foster care after the father's death. The court held three hearings, during which it found the children to be in a state of deprivation due to the mother's emotional and mental difficulties, drug abuse, lack of stable housing, and periods of incarceration and hospitalization, with no substantial improvement over time. Based on these facts, the juvenile court concluded that the causes of deprivation were likely to continue and ordered termination of the mother's rights under the applicable statute. On appeal, the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination, holding that the findings were supported and authorized the result.

family law

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by an automobile painter with a pre-existing condition of chronic bronchitis and emphysema caused by long-term smoking. The claimant experienced respiratory problems after inhaling isocyanates from paint fumes at work, culminating in a severe bronchospasm episode on January 4, 1977, that left him totally disabled. An administrative law judge awarded ongoing compensation, finding the workplace exposure aggravated the underlying condition and was a contributing cause of the disability; the Board and superior court upheld this award. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that aggravation of a pre-existing condition by work-related fumes was sufficient to constitute a compensable injury under Code Ann. § 114-102 and that competent evidence supported the factual findings.

labor & employment

This case involved a claim for malicious prosecution after Bi-Lo, Inc. caused the arrest of plaintiff Stanciel on a warrant for issuing a worthless check that was later determined to be a forgery. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the evidence created a jury question on the lack of probable cause and malice because the defendant had been notified before seeking the warrant that the plaintiff may not have written the check, yet followed a policy of using criminal process to collect on bad checks. The court also upheld the trial judge's jury instructions on dismissal of misdemeanor warrants and the consideration of surrounding circumstances, as well as the denial of a mistrial motion related to a juror's independent legal research.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned the Georgia Department of Public Safety's revocation of appellee's driver's license for five years after designating him an habitual violator under Code Ann. § 68B-308 based on three qualifying convictions, including a South Carolina DUI matter resolved by bond forfeiture. The superior court held that the South Carolina disposition should not count as a conviction and ordered reinstatement of the license. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that a facially valid out-of-state judgment cannot be collaterally attacked in Georgia proceedings and that the record otherwise contained sufficient convictions, including a Georgia nolo contendere plea and later Georgia offenses, to sustain the habitual-violator determination.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a suit on an account in which the DeKalb County Hospital Authority alleged that Arnold owed $1,306.30 plus interest. Arnold, representing himself, denied the debt at a jury trial and lost; he then appealed, raising claims about alleged prejudicial statements by the judge, the admission of business records, and jury instructions. The court affirmed the verdict, ruling that the affidavit about the judge's comments was not part of the trial record and could not be considered, that Arnold had not objected to the records at trial, and that neither party had requested or objected to the jury charge, so these issues were waived on appeal.

procedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of aggravated battery who appealed solely on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. The facts showed the defendant was arrested in January 1976, counsel was retained in mid-February, and a one-day delay was granted before trial, with a longer continuance risking carryover to the next court term. The court held that denial of a continuance is reviewed only for clear abuse of discretion and that insufficient preparation time for new counsel is not by itself a sufficient ground for delay. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing for slander and invasion of privacy after the defendant, an assistant manager at a convenience store, reported to police that she saw him drive off without paying for gasoline. The defendant moved for summary judgment, supported by evidence that her statements were made in good faith while assisting a police investigation into the alleged theft, and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that statements made in good faith to police during a crime investigation are privileged communications that bar recovery for slander. The court also ruled that the defendant's duty to report the theft meant the subsequent public investigation did not constitute an invasion of privacy. The plaintiff failed to present evidence creating factual issues regarding lack of good faith.

torts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted under the Georgia Controlled Substances Act for possessing more than one ounce of marijuana, while his co-defendant was acquitted in a joint trial. The court affirmed the conviction after addressing multiple claims of error. It held that the motion to suppress was procedurally defective because it failed to state facts showing the search was unlawful as required by statute. The denial of the motion to sever was upheld because the defendant did not demonstrate prejudice from antagonistic defenses, and other objections were deemed insufficient or abandoned for lack of proper support.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a personal injury suit in which the plaintiff alleged he fell and was injured due to defectively slippery heels with metal plates on shoes manufactured by Florsheim and sold by Miller-Taylor Shoe Company; he claimed product defect, failure to warn, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held there was no evidence of any defect, as a metal heel plate is a common feature of shoes used for normal walking, and the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the slipping hazard from an earlier pair of the same shoes. It further ruled that neither the manufacturer nor seller had a duty to warn of obvious common dangers like slipping, and without a defect there could be no breach of warranty.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a negligence action in which the plaintiff alleged that employees of the defendant ambulance service aggravated his injuries from a prior car accident by mishandling him while placing him on a stretcher. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. On appeal, the court examined two evidentiary rulings: exclusion of a bystander's statement about the plaintiff's broken neck (deemed admissible under the res gestae exception but harmless error due to other testimony) and refusal to allow testimony on medicine costs under the best evidence rule (also harmless because it related only to damages). The court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the evidence supported a finding of no negligence or causation by the ambulance employees.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a foreign corporation plaintiff suing a Georgia defendant for breach of a lease agreement that had been assigned to the plaintiff by another foreign corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff and its assignor had not obtained the required certificate of authority to do business in Georgia under Code Ann. § 22-1421, which bars such suits. The trial court granted the motion after the defendant’s counsel stated in court that the Secretary of State’s office confirmed no certificate had been issued. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the counsel’s statement was hearsay and incompetent to prove the lack of a certificate, and that the defendant also failed to show the assignor was required to obtain one under the statute’s exceptions for certain activities.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a lawsuit by a former security officer against Georgia Power Co. for wrongful and malicious discharge from employment, with the plaintiff claiming he was fired without cause in 1976 after being hired as a permanent employee in 1975, allegedly because he was about to expose criminal activities by a construction superintendent. The plaintiff also alleged a conspiracy among company employees to procure the discharge. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that under Georgia Code § 66-101, an indefinite hiring may be terminated at will by either party with no statutory exception for terminations tied to uncovering crimes, making the discharge lawful and the conspiracy claim non-actionable.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over the breach of a settlement agreement resolving a prior conversion action, in which the plaintiff dismissed its lawsuit in exchange for the defendant's return of certain materials. The defendant admitted the agreement but refused to return the materials, citing an IRS tax lien on the plaintiff that was later released as to those items. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict for the plaintiff on liability, holding that the plaintiff had fully performed by dismissing the suit, the defendant had no legal excuse for non-performance since the lien did not bar delivery, and a verdict on liability was therefore demanded for the plaintiff. The court affirmed the directed verdict against punitive damages because such damages are unavailable in contract cases but directed that general damages and litigation expenses be submitted to a jury.

propertyproceduretaxes