What to Expect at the First Arguments in the New Judicial Building
Presiding Judge Anne Barnes, the most senior member of the Georgia Court of Appeals, will preside over the first oral arguments in the new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday.
January 06, 2020 at 10:16 AM
4 minute read
The first public event in the new $131 million, 215,000 square foot Nathan Deal Judicial Center will be oral arguments at the Georgia Court of Appeals starting at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday.
The new building houses both the state's appellate courts: the Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court. The building was finished in December, and the courts began moving in before the holidays.
A panel of three judges will hear a divorce appeal—King v. King—and a business dispute over allegations of environmental damage—Wylee Toms v. William Buck Jr.
The judge will be Presiding Judge Anne Barnes, the longest-serving member of the intermediate appellate court. She joined the bench in 1999.
That fact is "almost a coincidence," Georgia Court of Appeals Clerk Steve E. Castlen said Friday. The presiding judges asked for their argument dates, and the one Barnes requested happened to be the first. Others will follow on Wednesday and Thursday.
But Chief Judge Chris McFadden said he likes the symbolism for Tuesday. "I think it's very appropriate that the dean of the court presides over our first oral argument in the new building," McFadden said Friday.
Sitting on the panel with Barnes will be Judge Elizabeth Gobeil and Senior Judge Herbert E. Phipps, who is substituting for the late Judge Stephen Goss. Goss, 60, died in August, his death ruled a suicide. Gov. Brian Kemp has been interviewing candidates to succeed Goss.
Calling the first case on Tuesday will be Barnes' former law school classmate and former staff attorney for almost 20 years, Christina Cooley Smith, who became the court's deputy administrator in July.
That's a duty that normally belongs to the clerk, but Castlen said he wanted Smith to do it.
"It's a nice touch for her," Castlen said. "It is an historic moment."
Smith said by email Friday, "It's kind of cool to be able to do that for my good friend and former boss."
That friendship didn't keep Smith from having to work from a former storage closet in the old building that housed the expanding court for 60 years.
The old building's limitations required creative workarounds: lots of extension cords, staff quarters in former closets and converted libraries. New judges and their staff were housed in an adjacent building, as was the clerk's office, Smith and Castlen said. The new building includes chambers with sufficient space to hold all of each judge's staff members—"a luxury formerly enjoyed by only 6 of the Court's 15 judges," Smith said.
The Court of Appeals began operations in the new building on Dec. 20, the day after it ceased operations at the old one. Because the court delayed replacing most of its network equipment past the machines' normal lifespan, the IT Department was able to install new equipment into the new building weeks before the staff moved, allowing it to run parallel networks and avoid shutting down operations during the move, Smith said.
"We had a few hiccups and bumps along the way, but overall the move went very smoothly," Castlen said. "The staff worked hard to keep our operations going while packing and unpacking all of the equipment and supplies we use daily. I'm proud of everyone on the court. They were kind and patient with each other."
Castlen said the court's second-floor courtroom has a bit less seating capacity than the old one, but much better acoustics and technology.
"It's a beautiful courtroom," Castlen said. "This historic oral argument is something we should all be proud of."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGeorgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
2 minute read'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readAppeals Court Removes Fulton DA From Georgia Election Case Against Trump, Others
6 minute readFamily of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250