Filter This View

  • Abellera v. Williamson

    Publication Date: 2001-10-19
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Sears, Leah Ward
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel S. Reinhardt and William M. Droze Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . James L. Ford Sr. Ford & Barnhart LLP and Carl A. Crowley III Crowley, Appel, Starkey & Holdbrook, Atlanta, for appellees.
    Case Number: S00G1957

    In reversing the grant of summary judgment to defendants, the Court of Appeals failed to looked at other grounds raised by the defendants to determine if the trial court's judgment was right for any

  • Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Ivey

    Publication Date: 2001-06-01
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Johnson, Edward H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard W. Gerakitis Troutman Sanders LLP, Robert D. Howell Lord, Bissell & Brook, and Thomas E. O'Connor Jr. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Atlanta, for Georgia-Pacific. Thurbert E. Baker Jr., Attorney General, Dennis R. Dunn, Deputy Attorney General, Susan L. Rutherford and Kimberly B. Lewis, Assistant Attorneys General, for Georgia Dep't of Labor. Todd C. Hughes Georgia Legal Services, Augusta, Mary I. Dickerson Georgia Legal Services, Lisa J. Krisher and Phyllis J. Holmen, Atlanta, for Ivey.
    for defendant:
    Case Number: A01A0158; A01A0230

    Denial of unemployment compensation reinstated because the employee's admitted violation of his employer's anti-drug policy justified his disc

  • Friedrich v. Fidelity Nat'l Bank

    Publication Date: 2001-02-23
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Smith, George T.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Charles C. Murphy Jr. and Patricia A. Chandler Vaughan & Murphy, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . James T. White Stites & Harbison, Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A00A1970

    In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals adopted the percentage of the fund rule for awarding attorneys' fees following the settlement of class action law

  • Kodadek v. Lieberman

    Publication Date: 2001-02-09
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Mikell, Charles B.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Neal H. Howard, Joann B. Williams and William D. James Neal H. Howard PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . Elaine W. Whitehurst, Cumming, for appellees. Other party representation: Alan M. Maxwell Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Atlanta.
    Case Number: A00A2550

    The plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial based on hearsay testimony that the jury bet on the outcome of the

  • In re Erion

    Publication Date: 2000-11-10
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: S00Y1238

    In a divided decision, the Supreme Court ruled that an attorney who failed to represent his client, did not refund the client's retainer and did not respond to disciplinary authorities was disb

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Anatomy of a Merger: Strategies and Techniques for Negotiating Corporate Acquisitions

    Authors: James C. Freund

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • In re Watkins

    Publication Date: 2000-09-22
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Per Curiam
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: S00Y0903, S00Y0923

    Attorney who settled a client's case without authority and kept the settlement proceeds to pay another person's unpaid legal fees is disb

  • Williamson v. Abellera

    Publication Date: 2000-08-25
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Johnson, Edward H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: James L. Ford Sr. James Lee Ford PC, Carl A. Crowley III Starkey, Land & Crowley PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . Daniel S. Reinhardt and William M. Droze Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, for appellees.
    Case Number: A00A0918

    Attorney could have foreseen that a tax-free exchange facilitator whom he recommended to his clients but with whom he was unfamiliar would abscond with his clients'

  • Nichols v. Main Street Homes Inc.

    Publication Date: 2000-08-18
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Pope, Marion T.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian M. Dubuc, Woodstock, for appellant.
    for defendant: . Steven J. Misner Misner, Scott & Grate, Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A00A0369, A00A0370

    Trial court erred in not allowing the plaintiff's attorney to testify as to the reasonableness of his attorney

  • Greer v. Davis

    Publication Date: 2000-07-07
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Andrews, Gary Blaylock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edward H. Lindsey Jr. and Ernest R. Bennett Jr. Goodman, McGuffey, Aust & Lindsey LLP, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . Allegra J. Lawrence and Teresa W. Roseborough Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A00A0688

    The defendants' obligation to furnish their church's financial records to a church trustee was not an ecclesiastical matter, since the church by-laws provided that any member could inspect the books

  • DeKalb County v. Adams

    Publication Date: 2000-05-12
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Hunstein, Carol W.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan A. Weintraub, County Attorney, Jeffrey L. Mann, Assistant County Attorney DeKalb County Law Department, Decatur, and Harvey S. Gray Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: . William T. Mitchell Cruser & Mitchell LLP, Robert W. Cullen Cullen & Miller, Jonathan C. Peters Love & Willingham, David F. Walbert Middleton, Mathis, Adams & Tate PC, Michael B. Terry Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore LLP, Atlanta, and Robert L. McGlasson, Decatur, for appellees.
    Case Number: S00A0517

    The superior court's chief had no authority to issue any order in the defendant's case because it was under the exclusive jurisdiction of another superior court