Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Gibson v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-04-13
Gary Gibson was convicted after a bench trial of deposit account fraud under OCGA § 16-9-20 for writing a check on a closed account to a construction rental company. The company had rented him heavy equipment, performed repairs, and presented a single invoice covering the full amount upon completion of the rentals and repairs; Gibson tendered the check immediately upon receiving that bill. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence allowed a rational trier of fact to find the check was given in exchange for “present consideration” as required by the statute. The court reasoned that the rental obligation qualified under the Code’s definition of present consideration and, alternatively, that the entire sequence formed a single contemporaneous transaction because the amount due was not finalized and invoiced until the equipment was returned and repairs completed.
criminal law
Hearn v. DOLLAR RENT a CAR, INC.
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-26 · cited 9×
The case involved Minnie Hearn’s claim that Dollar Rent A Car, DTG Operations, and York STB breached a $20,000 settlement agreement arising from a 2002 car accident by issuing a check that named Medicare as an additional payee, contrary to what Hearn’s attorney said the parties had orally agreed. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants and awarded attorney fees against Hearn and her lawyer under OCGA § 9-15-14. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment only as to Dollar, reversed it as to the other defendants, and vacated both fee awards. It held that the record presented a genuine factual dispute about whether the adjuster and Hearn’s counsel had agreed to exclude Medicare from the check because no reimbursement demand had been received, so the breach claim could not be resolved on summary judgment. The fee awards were vacated because the trial court failed to make the required findings identifying sanctionable conduct or apportioning fees.
torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure
State v. Brown
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-26 · cited 12×
The case involved the State's appeal of a trial court's decision to suppress evidence from a 2010 traffic stop of Douglas Brown at a Cobb County roadblock, where officers discovered marijuana after stopping his vehicle, leading to charges including DUI and drug possession. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the suppression, holding that the roadblock satisfied the constitutional standards under LaFontaine v. State. The court reasoned that a supervisor implemented the checkpoint in response to a citizen complaint about traffic issues, with the primary purpose of roadway safety rather than general crime detection; all vehicles were stopped, the checkpoint was clearly marked, delays were minimal, and the screening officers were qualified, while additional details like exact advance planning or minimum staffing levels were not required by the Fourth Amendment.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re Eg
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-20
In this case, the Morgan County Department of Family and Children Services took custody of two young children after finding them deprived due to the mother's drug use and unstable living situation, and the father's incarceration along with later-documented issues including domestic violence, lack of stable housing or employment, and failure to complete required services. The juvenile court approved a case plan requiring the father to complete drug and alcohol treatment, secure stable housing and income, attend parenting classes, and address domestic violence concerns, but found he did not comply despite multiple opportunities and explanations. Following a termination hearing, the juvenile court terminated the father's parental rights, a decision the father appealed after his motion for new trial was denied. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence showed the father's ongoing failure to address the causes of deprivation, lack of visitation and support for over five months before the hearing, and the likelihood of serious harm to the children from continued deprivation, while the children were bonded with foster parents planning to adopt them.
family law
Matthews v. Dukes
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-14 · cited 8×
In Matthews v. Dukes, a biological father sought to legitimate a child born during the mother's marriage to another man, after years of secret contact and an extramarital affair, while the husband had raised the child as his own in an intact family. The trial court denied the legitimation petition, ruled that the biological father had abandoned his opportunity interest in the child and that legitimation was not in the child's best interest, issued a no-contact order, and required the biological father to pay child support. The appeals court affirmed the denial of legitimation and the no-contact order, holding that the biological father had failed to timely pursue a relationship with the child of a married couple and that the statutes do not allow substituting or adding a second legal father to an existing legitimate family. It reversed the support order, concluding there was no legal basis for imposing support obligations on a biological father whose legitimation petition had been denied.
family law
Hewell v. TROVER
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2012-03-12 · cited 1×
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict for the defendant physician, arguing that the trial court wrongly excluded part of the medical examiner’s testimony from the autopsy on their decedent. The medical examiner had been disclosed only as a fact witness on the cause of death (MRSA pneumonia), not as an expert who could opine, based on a hypothetical, that the pneumonia was likely present and detectable during the decedent’s office visit two days earlier. The trial court found this violated pretrial discovery rules requiring disclosure of expert opinions, excluded the testimony, and offered the plaintiffs either a mistrial or the chance to proceed without it; they chose to continue. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion because the opinion had not been disclosed and was cumulative of testimony from another expert witness.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability