George T. Smith

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.

criminal law

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem involved a breach of warranty claim by Klem against Southeast Ceramics and a counterclaim by Southeast Ceramics for malicious use of process. Following a Supreme Court decision on appealability, the Court of Appeals addressed the trial court's denial of Southeast Ceramics' motion for summary judgment on the warranty claim. The court affirmed the denial, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial under the summary judgment standard of CPA § 56(c). It also noted the Supreme Court's clarification that denial of summary judgment may be appealed when tied to an appealable order and overruled inconsistent prior precedent on that procedural point.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Margaret Wood, a registered nurse convicted under the Georgia Controlled Substances Act for allegedly tampering with syringes of the narcotic pethidine (Demerol) on her hospital floor. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence showing that Wood had sole access to the medication carts during her shift when the tampering occurred. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient because it failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as numerous other hospital staff had access to master keys and extra keys to the carts. The court noted that while the evidence raised suspicion, it did not meet the legal standard for convictions based on circumstantial evidence under Georgia law.

criminal lawprocedure

In Williamson v. State, the appellant was convicted of burglary and appealed on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser offense of theft by taking, and that the jury charge was unduly coercive. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that recent unexplained possession of stolen property permitted an inference of guilt sufficient for conviction under Georgia precedent, that no lesser-included-offense instruction was required absent a written request, and that the instructions, considered as a whole, did not coerce individual jurors. The opinion acknowledged potential tension between the possession rule and federal due-process standards but applied existing state law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Charles and Kathy Studebaker against Peagler and Manley Insurance Agency for alleged negligent failure to procure uninsured motorist coverage after a car accident with an uninsured driver. A jury returned a verdict for the Studebakers in the amount of $1,500, but the trial court denied the agency's motion for directed verdict. The appellate court reversed with direction to enter judgment for the agency, holding that recovery for negligence in failing to obtain coverage requires proof that a judgment had first been recovered against the uninsured motorist (a condition precedent under the relevant insurance code), and that the Studebakers' parol testimony was insufficient to establish such a judgment under the best evidence rule. Without evidence that the coverage would have allowed recovery, the alleged negligence was not shown to have proximately caused any loss.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a general contractor (Pew) seeking contractual indemnity from a subcontractor (Bryan) after Pew was named in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a construction project. The parties disputed whether Bryan's indemnity obligation under the contract extended to the full amount of any damages even if Pew and Bryan were concurrently negligent, or whether damages should instead be apportioned based on comparative fault. The trial court granted summary judgment to Bryan, ruling that any award would be split according to each party's percentage of negligence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the indemnity clause required Bryan to fully indemnify Pew for claims attributable even partly to Bryan's negligence, as the contract's only limitation was for losses resulting solely from Pew's negligence, consistent with prior Georgia precedent on such provisions.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a roller rink operator suing a paving contractor for negligent construction of the rink floor after an initial verdict was reversed on appeal for failure to instruct on implied accord and satisfaction. On retrial, the jury awarded $80,000 to the plaintiff, and the contractor appealed raising numerous errors. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported a tort claim for negligent performance independent of the contract, that damages were adequately proven, and that the jury instructions and other rulings were proper.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a claim by Edward Spicer against Ford Motor Credit Company for conversion of a Lincoln automobile, following prior appeals. A jury awarded Spicer $21,574 in actual damages, including compensation for the car's value at conversion and hire from that date until trial. Ford challenged several trial court rulings on evidence admissibility, a requested jury charge regarding application of payments, impeachment attempts, and the sufficiency and amount of damages. The court held that any excluded evidence was cumulative or harmless, the requested charge lacked evidentiary support, impeachment evidence was properly excluded, Spicer's testimony established the car's value, and the damages award was authorized by statute and precedent without indicating bias. The judgment was affirmed.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

Jones v. State involved an appellant convicted of burglary and rape who raised multiple claims on appeal, including that the state was required to provide lie detector and voice analyzer tests, that certain jury instructions on the presumption of innocence and witness identification were erroneous, and that a motion for new trial should have been granted based on post-trial test results and an affidavit alleging the victim offered to drop charges for payment. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the convictions. It rejected the claims by citing binding precedents that upheld the admissibility requirements for lie detector evidence, approved the challenged jury charges as consistent with due process standards when viewed in full context, and found no abuse of discretion in denying the new trial motion since the additional evidence did not meet the criteria for overturning the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an 11-year-old plaintiff who suffered partial blindness after attempting to replicate a sound effect demonstration from a Walt Disney-produced episode of 'The Mickey Mouse Club,' using a balloon and a piece of lead, resulting in the balloon bursting. The plaintiff sued the producers and broadcasters for negligence, alleging the segment encouraged dangerous conduct without warnings. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no sustainable negligence claim as a matter of law and that the First Amendment provided an absolute defense. The appellate court reversed, holding that issues of foreseeability and negligence are generally for jury resolution rather than summary adjudication, and that precedent like Weirum v. RKO supports potential liability for negligently broadcast statements creating undue risk of harm, while distinguishing the First Amendment arguments from defamation cases.

torts & liabilityfree speech

The case involved former employees of a nursing home, an administrator and dietician, who were terminated by the company president after allegedly being directed to violate state and federal regulations. They sued for damages stemming from the firing, including reputational harm and inability to find new work, and later amended their complaint to add claims related to a conspiracy to forge one employee's signature on a Medicaid report, exposing him to criminal investigation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the termination-related claims because the employment was at-will, making the employer's motives irrelevant under Georgia precedent, but reversed as to the forgery claims, which presented a separate cause of action that required consideration.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a defendant indicted for cruelty to children and child molestation who pleaded guilty to the latter charge, after which the state dismissed the former. The defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his motion was timely because a final sentence had not yet been pronounced. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to withdraw, holding that the ten-year sentence was pronounced on September 28, 1979, when the written order was filed with the clerk, rendering the December 20 motion untimely under the applicable precedent. The reasoning relied on the rule that a sentence is pronounced once reduced to writing, signed by the court, and delivered to the clerk, with no evidence that the defendant was misled by the court's oral statements or any promise of a reduced sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved home buyers suing a property developer for failing to complete construction and landscaping as promised in the sales contract, claiming breach and fraud after the seller induced closing with further promises that went unfulfilled. The trial court upheld a jury verdict awarding the buyers $1,500 in compensatory damages and $3,500 in punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations about future performance that the seller knew would not occur, that the complaint amendment for fraud was timely, that actual damages were adequately proven through cost estimates, and that issues like contract merger were not preserved for appeal.

propertytorts & liability

In Mulling v. State, the appellant was convicted at a bench trial in superior court of DUI and marijuana possession and appealed the denial of his motions to suppress evidence and for a new trial. The court reversed the DUI conviction on the ground that the evidence—limited to weaving within the lane without crossing the centerline, a blood alcohol level of 0.07 percent, and the odor of alcohol—was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also reversed the marijuana conviction, ruling that the police inventory search of the vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the appellant had selected a towing service, making impoundment unnecessary and eliminating any justification for the search.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Administrator of Veterans Affairs bringing an action for possession of real estate against a defendant who remained after foreclosure, alleging the defendant was a tenant at sufferance who refused to vacate. After the defendant defaulted and failed to appear at a hearing on a motion to vacate the judgment, the trial court issued a writ of possession and denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the petition's allegations were sufficient under Code § 61-301 because a post-foreclosure occupant is a tenant at sufferance subject to summary dispossession, and the default admitted those facts as true.

propertyprocedure