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
© 2025 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 Republicans Push to Limit Lawsuits. But Would That Keep Insurance Rates From Rising?
5 minute readA Plan Is Brewing to Limit Big-Dollar Suits in Georgia—and Lawyers Have Mixed Feelings
10 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 2Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
- 3GOP-Led SEC Tightens Control Over Enforcement Investigations, Lawyers Say
- 4Transgender Care Fight Targets More Adults as Georgia, Other States Weigh Laws
- 5Roundup Special Master's Report Recommends Lead Counsel Get $0 in Common Benefit Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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