Filter This View

  • Robles et al. v. Yugueros et al.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-27
    Practice Area: Evidence | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Barnes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brent Kaplan (Isenberg & Hewitt, PC), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Michael Bailey, Erica Jansen (Huff, Powell & Bailey, LLC), Atlanta; Thomas Carlock (Carlock, Copeland & Stair), Atlanta; Wayne McGrew (Weathington McGrew), Atlanta; Neil Edwards (Attorney at Law), Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A15A1566

    The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude certain deposition testimony the medical malpractice plaintiff sought to admit as an admission against interest, because plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the evidence was admissible.

  • HH&L Electric, Inc. v. Hebbard Electric, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Contracts | Evidence
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge Doyle
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John Long (Tucker, Everitt, Long, Brewton & Lanier), Augusta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Joseph Staak (Smith, Currie & Hancock), Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0957

    The trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to defendant in a breach of contract action that was based on a disagreement as to the amount of "profit" parties were to split in their joint venture because the trial court based that decision on disputed opinion testimony.

  • The State v. Council

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge Reese
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: N/a
    for defendant: N/a
    Case Number: A17A1218

    The trial court erred in granting defendant's motion in limine to suppress the results of two breath tests obtained after her arrest for driving under the influence because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer did not coerce or compel defendant to undergo the breath tests.

  • Harvey v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge Bethel
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: N/a
    for defendant: N/a
    Case Number: A17A0898

    Although the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana, the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for possession of a firearm during a felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon because there was no evidence showing that defendant exercised dominion over the gun.

  • The State v. Licata

    Publication Date: 2017-11-22
    Practice Area: Constitutional Law | Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge McFadden
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Adam Keller (Sr. Assistant Solicitor General), Cumming; William Finch (Solicitor General of Forsyth County), Cumming, for appellant.
    for defendant: Woodrow Smith (Attorney at Law), Atlanta; Matthew Winchester (Law Offices of Matthew K. Winchester), Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A1200

    The trial court erred in granting DUI defendant's motion to suppress the results field sobriety tests and evidence of his refusal to take a breath test because he was sufficiently warned of his right not to incriminate himself before the field sobriety tests and he was not entitled to counsel when deciding whether to submit to the state-requested breath test.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    New Jersey Trial Evidence and Procedure 2025

    Authors: Andrew J. Kyreakakis

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Federal National Mortgage Association v. Harris

    Publication Date: 2017-11-17
    Practice Area: Evidence | Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge Branch
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kimberly Rizzotti Weber, Allison Giardina (Aldridge Pite, LLP), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Ricky Harris, Savannah, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0694

    In a dispute over possession of certain real property, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider whether certain documents were admissible under O.C.G.A. 24-9-901, which sets out the standards for the authentication and admission of unsealed or uncertified documents.

  • Anglin v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-11-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Peterson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ashleigh Bartkus Merchant, John B. Merchant III (The Merchant Law Firm, PC.), for appellant.
    for defendant: Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Christopher M. Carr (Department of Law), Atlanta; Michael Scott Carlson, D. Victor Reynolds (Cobb County District Attorney's Office), Marietta, for appellee.
    Case Number: S17A1153

    The evidence supported defendant's convictions for felony murder and marijuana possession and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing State to introduce evidence of defendant's alleged membership in a gang, as there was some evidence presented at trial to show that the charged crimes were motivated by gang membership.

  • Bath v. International Paper Company et al

    Publication Date: 2017-11-13
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Evidence | Premises Liability
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Judge McMillian
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William Bowen, Paul Painter (Bowen Painter, LLC), Savannah; April Stafford (Stafford Law Group, LLC), Statesboro, for appellant.
    for defendant: Todd Baiad, Lucas Bradley (Bouhan Falligant LLP), Savannah, for appellee. Garret Meader, Jeffrey Ward (Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP), Brunswick, for other party.
    Case Number: A17A0906

    The trial court erred in concluding that alleged spoliated evidence was unrelated to the grounds upon which summary judgment was granted and thus erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's premises liability and negligence action arising after he was severely injured when he was electrocuted while working at a paper plant.

  • Glenn v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-11-09
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Georgia Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Grant
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew K. Winchester (Law Offices of Matthew K. Winchester), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Meghan Hobbs Hill, Christopher M. Carr (Department of Law), Atlanta; Lenny I. Krick, Sherry Boston, Anna Green Cross (Dekalb County District Attorneys Office), Decatur; Harry Steven Ruth (Office of the District Attorney), Decatur, for appellee.
    Case Number: S17A0858

    The Court affirmed defendant's murder conviction, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting lay witnesses to give testimony identifying defendant as one of the people in a surveillance video recording of the murder and robbery and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his sisters apartment.

  • Miller v. The State

    Publication Date: 2017-11-08
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Barnes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramon Alvarado (Attorney at Law), Norcross, for appellant.
    for defendant: Stephanie Woodard (Solicitor General), Gainesville; Michael George (Hall County Solicitor General's Office), Gainesville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0651

    In defendant's DUI trial, the trial court admitted defendant's prior DUI conviction for proper purposes, including that such evidence tended to show her knowledge of the effects of alcohol consumption on her driving and knowledge about the use of testing to determine impairment, and the trial court was authorized to find that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, despite the age of the prior DUI conviction.