• State v. Jones

    Publication Date: 2008-04-04
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2441

    Double jeopardy did not preclude the state from prosecuting the defendant in superior court for aggravated battery and aggravated assault, because he was never placed in jeopardy as to his state cou

  • R. S. W. v. Emory Healthcare Inc.

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2461

    The plaintiff's claims that based on the defendant's alleged negligently failure to inform him about the risk of exposure to a fatal disease before his surgery were not suitable for class ce

  • Porter v. State

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A1886

    The vehicle's actual speed is not a material averment of an indictment for spe

  • Thomas v. Peachtree Orthopaedic

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2404

    The trial court did not err in excluding the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert, whom they named in amended discovery responses on January 10, 2007, 14 days after the deadline for filing their

  • State v. Palmer

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2332

    The evidence did not demand a conclusion that probable cause supported issuance of the search warrant, since the affidavit in support of the warrant omitted salient information regarding the confide

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lancaster County & Berks County Court Rules 2023

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Rader v. Levenson

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2354

    Even if a trust attached to allegedly misapplied estate funds, venue was not proper in Douglas county, because trusts are subjects of equity jurisdiction, which lies in the county where the defendan

  • Hill v. State

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2127

    Evidence that the defendant drove two men to Buckhead twice so they could rob the victims at gunpoint, and drove the get-away vehicle was sufficient to support his convictions for armed robbery and

  • Gateway Atlanta Apartments Inc. v. Harris

    Publication Date: 2008-03-28
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2070; A07A2071; A07A2072; A07A2073

    An apartment complex's owner did not have superior knowledge that a bail bondsman would fatally shoot the plaintiff's son at the complex in an attempt to apprehend him for bond forfe

  • Park Ridge Condo. Assoc. Inc. v. Callais

    Publication Date: 2008-03-14
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2437

    The trial court erred failing to determine under O.C.G.A. § 14-3-1604 c, which fees and expenses related to the plaintiff's petition to inspect and copy her condominium association's r

  • Johnson v. State

    Publication Date: 2008-03-07
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Ruffin, John H.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: A07A2399

    The photographic line-up, which contained six pictures depicting men of the same race, same general age and similar facial hair and hairstyles, was not impermissibly sugge