Charles Adams Pannell

This case concerned Turner Communications Corporation's application for permits from the Georgia Department of Transportation to erect two outdoor advertising signs within 660 feet of Interstate 20 in Atlanta, both subject to the state's Control of Outdoor Advertising Act. The DOT denied both permits because the signs, located on the same side of the highway, were less than 500 feet apart as measured along the edge of the pavement, violating the statute's spacing requirement. The trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed the denial after construing the Act's intent to minimize visual distractions and aesthetic impacts on interstate motorists, holding that measurement along the highway (rather than a straight-line "crow flies" distance) best served that purpose and that both signs were adjacent to and on the same side of I-20 despite an intervening street. The court rejected arguments that other roads or measurement methods altered the statutory restrictions.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a defendant convicted of livestock theft and sentenced to four and one-half years who appealed his guilty verdict, mainly challenging the admission of his written confession. The court determined that the state made a prima facie showing of the confession's voluntariness based on the sheriff's testimony that Miranda rights were provided and no inducements or threats occurred. Although defense witnesses claimed the sheriff threatened to jail the defendant's wife to obtain the confession, the court held that conflicts in the evidence on voluntariness presented a factual issue for the jury. The court further found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by a nurse injured during an unscheduled break at her hospital job. The Georgia Court of Appeals addressed whether the injury arose out of employment when the employee was on duty without fixed break times, could not leave the premises, and remained subject to immediate recall to the operating room. The court distinguished this from prior cases involving scheduled free-time breaks and held that the evidence supported a compensable award. It therefore affirmed the superior court's decision upholding the board's grant of compensation to the claimant.

labor & employment

The case involved a lawsuit by a father and daughter against James L. Robertson for personal injuries to the daughter and related expenses and property damage arising from a car collision. The collision occurred when the appellants' wife/mother made a left turn in front of Robertson's vehicle on a hilly road with a 35 mph speed limit, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that any errors in jury charges regarding damages or evidence admissibility were harmless since the verdict turned on liability, that objections to certain charges were not properly preserved, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or refusing to submit special verdict questions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the plaintiff to recover on a promissory note secured by a deed to secure debt, seeking the principal amount, interest, and attorney fees following a foreclosure sale under the power of sale. The defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that the sale had not been confirmed as required by Georgia law (Code Ann. § 67-1503), and the plaintiff later amended the complaint to seek only attorney fees, asserting no deficiency judgment was involved. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the lack of confirmation barred any action for deficiency amounts even if they included attorney fees, and that the attached notice for attorney fees failed to satisfy the requirements of Code § 20-506.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant who was tried twice for armed robbery, with the first trial ending in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked and the second resulting in a conviction for robbery by intimidation. On appeal, the defendant argued that the mistrial violated double jeopardy protections because the trial court improperly declared it without his acquiescence. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge acted within his discretion by granting a mistrial upon determining the jury was hopelessly deadlocked after several hours of deliberation, as supported by precedents allowing retrial in such circumstances. The court found no harm from the judge's conditional offer to continue deliberations and concluded that double jeopardy does not bar a second trial when a jury cannot reach a verdict.

criminal lawprocedure