Eugene E. Crook was convicted by a jury of soliciting employment or business from the occupant of a vehicle in violation of Code Ann. § 68A-507 (b) after approaching a man standing five or six feet behind his damaged car and handing him a business card. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling that the state failed to prove an essential element of the offense. The court held that the term "occupant of any vehicle" requires the person to be inside or mounted upon the vehicle, based on the statute's plain language and the rule that criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the state; because the recipient was a pedestrian outside the car, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
The case involved an insured's claim for actual and punitive damages against Sentry Indemnity Company for its refusal to pay benefits arising from an automobile collision covered by an insurance binder. The insured's son had been involved in the accident, and the insurer contended that misrepresentations about the son's driving record rendered the coverage void from the outset under Georgia Code § 56-2409. The trial court directed a verdict for the insurer on punitive damages but allowed the jury to award actual damages, a penalty, and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Pearce v. Southern Guaranty Insurance Co. precluded voiding the no-fault policy ab initio based on misrepresentations after the loss, but found as a matter of law that the insurer had a reasonable defense justifying its refusal, requiring the penalty and fees to be written off. The cross-appeal on punitive damages was rejected for lack of evidence of tortious conduct.
This case involves a dispute over the adoption of a three-year-old child whose parents died in an accident, with the paternal aunt and uncle filing a petition in Georgia after sharing custody with the maternal relatives. The trial court granted the adoption over objections from the maternal aunt, uncle, and grandparents. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that jurisdiction for adoption is proper in the county where the adopting parents reside under the current statute, and that the child's domicile or residence in Georgia is not a required prerequisite. The court overruled prior decisions that had imposed a domicile requirement, reasoning that the statutory language controls and does not imply such a limit. A dissent argued that the child's Tennessee domicile deprived Georgia courts of jurisdiction.
The case concerned property owners appealing a jury's award of $116,600 in compensation for a parcel condemned by MARTA for its transit rail project, raising claims that the trial court's instructions on consequential damages violated constitutional requirements for just compensation and that MARTA had improperly introduced prejudicial evidence despite a granted motion in limine. The court affirmed the verdict in full. It reasoned that the challenged jury charge on measuring consequential damages matched instructions previously approved by the Georgia Supreme Court and therefore could not be grounds for reversal, while the owner's prior valuation statements were properly elicited for impeachment purposes without referencing the other case, consistent with rules allowing thorough cross-examination of opposing parties.
Wilbur Walker appealed his conviction on five counts of theft by taking, stemming from his role as clerk of the municipal court where an audit revealed missing funds from fine payments. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that evidence of additional uncharged shortages and Walker's frequent gambling was properly admitted as relevant to show intent, motive, plan, and bent of mind. The court further determined that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The case involved a patient who sued urology clinic doctors and a hospital after a catheter placed during kidney stone removal surgery migrated into his bladder, causing pain and requiring surgical removal; the patient alleged negligence in catheter selection and post-operative monitoring and care. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the hospital, finding no basis for liability, but reversed in part as to the doctors because their expert evidence did not address all alleged acts of negligence, leaving factual issues on post-operative treatment that required trial. The decision applied Georgia summary judgment rules requiring defendants to pierce all of plaintiff's pleadings with expert testimony in malpractice cases.
