Filter This View

  • In the interest of E. G. L. B. et al., children.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-11
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Chief Judge Dillard
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Rodney Quarles (Attorney at Law), Chatsworth, for appellant.
    for defendant: Christopher Carr (Attorney General), Atlanta; Dennis Dunn (Deputy Attorney General), Atlanta; Penny Hannah (Assistant Attorney General), Cynthia Johnson (Johnson Law PC), Cohutta; Shalen Nelson (Senior Assistant Attorney General), Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0881

    There was not clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court's order terminating father's parental rights to his two minor children and the Court of Appeals thus vacated the order.

  • McDowell v. Bowers et al.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-10
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Ellington
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lloyd D. Murray, Sr., (Attorney at Law), Richmond Hill, for appellant.
    for defendant: Karen Barr (Attorney at Law), Savannah, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0948

    The trial court erred in permitting the child's biological grandparents to intervene in a non-relative third party's petition to adopt the child because the grandparents were not permitted under Georgia law to intervene under the circumstances presented in this case.

  • Hill et al. v. Iles

    Publication Date: 2017-10-10
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge McMillian
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Marcy Hanks (Foster, Hanks & Ballard, LLC), Monroe, for appellant.
    for defendant: Markeith Wilson (M. D. Wilson Law, LLC), Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A1079

    The trial court was not authorized to award custody to father because the only issue before the trial court was father's appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate the temporary letters of guardianship.

  • Ross v. Ross

    Publication Date: 2017-10-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Justice Benham
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jason G. Smith (Attorney at Law), Newnan, for appellant.
    for defendant: Patrick Joseph Fox (McNally, Fox, Grant & Davenport, P.C.), Fayetteville, for appellee.
    Case Number: S17A0799

    The trial court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to modify a Connecticut child support order as Connecticut had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child support order because husband was still a resident of Connecticut and neither party had provided written consent for a Georgia tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over the matter.

  • Lockamy v. Lockamy

    Publication Date: 2017-10-02
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Justice Melton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Garnett Harrison, Jacqueline NiCole Fortier (Garnett Harrison PC), Kingsland, for appellant.
    for defendant: Richard Allen Sanders, Jr. (Andrews & Sanders Law Offices), Savannah, for appellee.
    Case Number: S17A0966

    The trial court erred in granting wife's motion to reform a divorce decree because she untimely filed the motion more than six years after the entry of the judgment.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New York Attorney Discipline: Practice and Procedure 2024

    Authors: Hal R. Lieberman, J. Richard Supple, Jr., Harvey Prager

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Bennett v. Etheridge

    Publication Date: 2017-10-02
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Justice Boggs
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew Thelston Mosley II (Drew Mosley LLC), Lawrenceville, for appellant.
    for defendant: Dexter Maynard Wimbish (Attorney at Law), McDonough, for appellee.
    Case Number: S17A0762

    The habeas court erred in dismissing appellant's motion for new trial following an order discharging the payment of restitution and any arrearage for back child support by the purported biological father of appellant's minor child because, contrary to the habeas court's conclusion, appellant had standing to challenge the court's judgment.