Filter This View

  • The State v. Peabody

    Publication Date: 2017-11-20
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals | Government
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Miller
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Cliff Head (Assistant District Attorney Blue Ridge Judicial Circuit), Canton; Lara Snow (Cherokee County D.A.'S Office), Canton; Shannon Wallace (District Attorney), Canton, for appellant.
    for defendant: David Willingham (Willingham Law Firm, P.C.), Marietta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A1258

    The trial court properly granted former lieutenant's motion to quash an indictment against him for two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals in connection with the hot-car death of his K-9 dog because he was acting within the scope of his official job duties when the alleged crimes occurred and he was therefore entitled to the protections afforded by O.C.G.A. § 17-7-52, including timely notice of the grand jury proceeding and a copy of the proposed indictment, but State failed to comply with those statutory mandates.

  • Cash et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

    Publication Date: 2017-09-27
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Toxic Torts
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Presiding Judge Miller
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Eric Brock (Clore Law Group LLC), Charleston; Peter Scholle (Scholle Law), Duluth; David Sleppy (Cathey & Strain LLC), Cornelia; Omar Chawdhary, Jason Webster (Attorney at Law), Houston; Samuel Allen (Attorney at Law), Charleston, for appellant.
    for defendant: Edward Bresee, Arthur Park (Mozley Finlayson & Loggins LLP), Atlanta; Ayesha Khan, John Moss (Potomac Law Group), Washington, for appellee.
    Case Number: A17A0878

    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert's testimony after concluding that the expert's methodology was unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), as the analytical gap between the data and the expert's opinion was too remote, and consequently, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant based on the absence of any evidence of causation.