Georgia CommonsBuscar en todas las colecciones
Buscar en Georgia Commons
Proyectos de ley, opiniones de la Corte Suprema, el Código y las dos constituciones, y transcripciones de las reuniones de la Cámara y el Senado, en una sola búsqueda. Pregunte con palabras sencillas: la búsqueda ordena los pasajes por su significado y también por sus palabras.
Filtros:Supreme Court of Georgia Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 404 pasajes en 243 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de noviembre de 2024
In THE MATTER OF ESTON WILLIAM HOOD, JR. (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia suspendió al abogado Eston William Hood, Jr. por dos años, rechazando una suspensión recomendada de un año por considerarla demasiado indulgente dado que admitió haber hecho declaraciones falsas al abogado contrario, al personal del tribunal y al propio Colegio de Abogados del Estado.
1 Hood later amended his petition for voluntary discipline solely to include one inadvertently omitted character reference. With regard to SDBD No. 7407,2 the following facts are established by the record. In late 2018 or early 2019, Hood agreed to represent a client against whom a default judgment, totaling $5,710, had been entered in DeKalb County...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 8 de abril de 2025
State v. Williams
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó una orden que concedió nuevos juicios a Jalontaye Cleveland y Courtney Williams, al determinar que las instrucciones del juez al jurado, que nombraban a tres testigos como cómplices, constituyeron un comentario indebido sobre la culpabilidad de los acusados.
(c) M&P Food Mart Collins testified that, on October 22, 2016, Williams was driving Cleveland and Collins around, and they “talk[ed] about 3 Collins testified that Cleveland went by the nickname “Jay” or “LoSo.” doing a robbery.”4 Ritesh Prajapati5 was working at the M&P Food Mart that day. According to Collins, Williams dropped them off at the store “after...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de octubre de 2022
In the Matter of Trent Lee Coggins
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la petición de un abogado de Valdosta para una suspensión de seis meses por violaciones de cuenta fiduciaria, retroactiva a cuando dejó de ejercer, y lo reincorporó de inmediato porque el período de suspensión ya había transcurrido.
Additionally, prior to the May 2016 closing, Coggins was present and overheard a telephone conversation between his client and the third party in which they discussed applying the proceeds of the sale of the four lots toward repayment of the Loan. Coggins believed that the third party would release the four lots from the security deed upon application of...
More than a year later, in June 2017, the third party contacted Coggins’s client and requested a replacement check, representing that Check No. 5016 had been dishonored by the bank due to the length of time that had elapsed since it was issued. The client told the third party that he would request a replacement check from Coggins, but the client did not do...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2021
Department of Transportation v. Mixon
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una disposición constitucional que exige al gobierno pagar por la propiedad que toma o daña también puede permitir a los propietarios demandar por una orden judicial, no solo por dinero, en ciertas circunstancias.
[W]hen private property is taken or damaged for public road and street purposes by the State and the counties and the municipalities of the State, just and adequate compensation therefor need not be paid until the same has been finally fixed and determined as provided by law, but such just and adequate compensation shall then be paid in preference to all...
4 We note that at least some parts of the complex statutory scheme regarding eminent domain also appear to require payment to precede a taking. See, e.g., OCGA § 22-1-5 (“Except in cases of extreme necessity and great urgency, the right of eminent domain cannot be exercised without first providing for just compensation to the owner for the interference with...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de octubre de 2024
RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó una sentencia en rebeldía de $20 millones contra una asesora de inversiones, al fallar que la mujer que cobraba la sentencia usó el formulario de embargo equivocado porque la empresa no es una 'institución financiera' según la ley de Georgia.
mutual fund, or other organization held out to the public as a place of deposit of funds or medium of savings or collective investment. OCGA § 18-4-1 (4). The definition of “financial institution” does not include “registered investment advisors.” In fact, the Georgia Uniform Securities Act of 2008 defines “investment adviser” to specifically exclude a...
6 Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations (Rules and Regulations, Investment Advisers Act of 1940), Global may have “deemed custody” of portfolios or funds that it manages, even though those funds are held by others. “Deemed custody” is a term of art used to indicate managerial control of the funds for investment purposes, not actual...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de junio de 2026
Clark v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): The Supreme Court of Georgia sent a 2000 murder-for-hire case back to Fulton County for a hearing on whether Cleveland Clark's trial lawyers were ineffective, because he has had no earlier chance to raise that claim. His other challenges failed.
notice apparently was based on a verbal report received the same day from the defense’s expert preliminarily opining that Clark met the diagnostic criteria for mental retardation and appeared not to be competent to stand trial. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for continuance on May 27, 2009, the day before the trial was scheduled...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de marzo de 2025
Arnold v. Alexander
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que carece de 'jurisdicción original' para conocer directamente una petición de mandamus de un litigante indigente sin abogado que impugnaba las políticas de presentación de documentos de la Secretaría del Condado de Fulton, y envió el caso a la Corte de Apelaciones.
1 OCGA § 9-15-2 provides, in full: (a)(1) When any party, plaintiff or defendant, in any action the Clerk’s ministerial duty to file papers and that the policy violates his federal constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and or proceeding held in any court in this state is unable to pay any deposit, fee, or other cost which is normally...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de febrero de 2024
In THE MATTER OF DEIRDRE MARIA STEPHENS (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia ordenó la inhabilitación de la abogada Deirdre Maria Stephens, rechazando una recomendación más leve de suspensión de seis meses tras determinar que mintió repetidamente a un tribunal de primera instancia sobre la ubicación de $80,000 en fondos de un cliente.
Finally, in September 2019, in response to the grievance filed against her, Stephens made additional false and misleading statements, stating: Throughout this legal ordeal I have informed my client that if a Motion for Contempt was filed and properly served then the money had to be released as I would not jeopardize my license so that he could attempt to...
(b) Conclusions of Law With regard to SDBD No. 7488, the Special Master found that Stephens admitted to violating Rule 1.15 (I) (a) and Rule 1.15 (II) (a), by allowing her trust account to fall below the minimum required balance and causing an overdraft on her trust account. Next, with regard to SDBD No. 7489, the Special Master determined that Stephens...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 1 de octubre de 2024
In THE MATTER OF JOHN L.G. HERBERT, JR. (Four Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado John L. G. Herbert, Jr. tras incurrir en rebeldía frente a cargos disciplinarios que lo acusaban de tomar aproximadamente $850,000 confiados por inversionistas inmobiliarios extranjeros.
2 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “a lawyer shall . . . keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter . . . [and] promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” 3 This Rule provides that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses,”...
7 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll funds held by a lawyer for a client and all funds held by a lawyer in any other fiduciary capacity shall be deposited in and administered from a trust account.” 8 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de junio de 2024
In the Matter of Diana Y. McDonald
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó a una abogada independiente que mintió a la contraparte de una clienta y al Colegio de Abogados del Estado sobre $4 millones guardados en su cuenta fiduciaria mientras gastaba en secreto gran parte de ese dinero en sí misma.
2 McDonald admitted that she identified her firm as a “law group,” even though she was a solo practitioner. She testified that, at one point, another attorney had practiced with her, but that attorney left the firm in 2018. She continued practicing as a “law group” through the events leading to this disciplinary matter, which occurred in 2019. provide goods...
Then, on January 9, 2019, after the third party again demanded return of its $4,000,000, McDonald informed the third party that she had received confirmation from her client that the Bitcoin would be delivered “before the end of business today”; represented that, “[a]s a gesture of good faith and recognition for the delay,” she had negotiated with her...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de febrero de 2026
Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aclaró cómo deben decidir los tribunales si un tercero, en lugar del asegurado, obtuvo en realidad una póliza de seguro de vida, una pregunta que determina si la póliza es una apuesta ilegal sobre una vida humana.
iv. The Nonrecourse Loan On February 16, 2007, the Insured and her husband executed a Disclosure Statement, Representations and Warranties, and Consent, in connection with a Loan and Security Agreement to pay for the Policy premiums with the assistance of attorney Ian Chaikin. Chaikin testified that he did not personally know Mrs. Leone, Mr. Leone, or...
Although there was an option for the Trust to extend the Loan for a third year, Mr. Shapiro testified that, under the Peachtree Program in which he was a designee, he did not recall a single occurrence where an insured reached into their own pocket and paid to extend the loan for a third year in the thirty to forty insurance trusts for which he served as a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de mayo de 2020
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia respondió tres preguntas certificadas sobre la ley de licencias de comerciantes agrícolas de Georgia, resolviendo que una empresa de productos agrícolas que actúa como comerciante debe tener licencia y que no obtenerla puede impedirle hacer cumplir un contrato comercial ante los tribunales.
a regulatory measure in the public interest and not a mere revenue measure. This Act requires more than the mere obtaining of a business license and a mere reading of the Act discloses without contradiction that it is an enactment for the protection of the public and a recognition that unless such employment agencies are solvent and operated by persons of...
Georgia’s Act imposes a similar, though not identical, licensing system upon dealers in agricultural products who engage in such business in Georgia.4 Subject to the exemptions in OCGA § 2-9-15, a “dealer in agricultural products,” as that term is defined in OCGA § 2-9-1 (2), is required to obtain a license from the Commissioner of Agriculture. See OCGA §...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
EFFICIENCY LODGE, INC. v. NEASON
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia anuló un fallo que exigía a un motel de estadía prolongada usar procedimientos judiciales de desalojo contra residentes de largo plazo, al determinar que los tribunales inferiores usaron la prueba legal equivocada para decidir si los residentes eran inquilinos o huéspedes de hotel.
We leave it for the trial court to apply this framework in the first instance, consistent with this opinion. 1. Background (a) Legal Framework Two legal relationships are at issue in this case. Both are be- tween a property owner and a person who occupies that property, and both are defined by statute. Under either relationship, if the occupant fails to pay...
The second relationship is that of innkeeper and guest. An inn is a “tavern[ ], hotel[ ], [or] house[ ] of public general entertainment for guests,” and a guest is “a person who pays a fee to the keeper of an inn for the purpose of entertainment at that inn.” OCGA § 43-21- 1. Unlike a landlord, an innkeeper does not need to file a writ of possession to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de mayo de 2020
In the Matter of Howard L. Sosnik
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia suspendió a un abogado de Georgia por seis meses como disciplina reciproca después de que Nueva York lo disciplinara por no supervisar la cuenta de fideicomiso de su firma de abogados, lo que permitió que un empleado se apropiara indebidamente de fondos de clientes.
PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary discipline filed by Howard L. Sosnik (State Bar No. 667258) under Bar Rule 4-227 (b), in which he seeks a six-month suspension as reciprocal discipline for a six-month suspension imposed in New York. See In the Matter of Sosnik, 173 AD3d 137 (N.Y. App. Div., May 29, 2019)...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de abril de 2026
In the Matter of Darryl J. Ferguson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia desestimó un caso disciplinario contra un abogado de lesiones personales, al considerar que el Colegio de Abogados del Estado no probó que retuviera indebidamente dinero de un acuerdo que le correspondía a un quiropráctico que trató a sus clientes.
MCMILLIAN, Justice, dissenting. Because I believe that the “Notice of Doctor’s Lien” for each client constituted contractual liens and that Ferguson could not reasonably conclude that he had a defense to those contractual liens, I respectfully dissent. A “lien” is generally “used to denote a legal claim or charge on property, either real or personal, for...
13 Although not relevant here, an equitable lien may also be available when a party was entitled to a statutory lien but was prevented from perfecting the lien. See, e.g., Clover Cable of Ohio v. Heywood, 260 Ga. 341, 344 (1990) (“When a party entitled to a statutory lien has been prevented from perfecting such lien by the acts of the adverse party, it has...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de octubre de 2024
In the Matter of William Slater Vincent
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la petición de disciplina voluntaria de un abogado del área de Fulton por violaciones a su cuenta fiduciaria, y ordenó una amonestación pública en lugar de la suspensión que había solicitado el Colegio de Abogados del Estado.
PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on William Slater Vincent’s (State Bar No. 727801) second amended petition for voluntary discipline filed before the issuance of a formal complaint. See Bar Rule 4-227 (b).1 In his second amended petition, Vincent2 admits that he violated Rules 1.15 (II) (a)3 and 1.15 (III) (b)4 of the Georgia Rules...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de septiembre de 2022
In the Matter of Andrew Matteson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia rechazó la solicitud de un abogado de aceptar una suspensión de tres a seis meses por el mal manejo de fondos de clientes y el abandono de casos, porque no presentó pruebas de sus afirmaciones sobre salud mental ni de que hubiera compensado a sus clientes.
In his petition, Matteson, who was admitted to the Bar in 2000, makes the following admissions unconditionally with respect to State Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) No. 7496. In exchange for a total retainer of $1,500 paid to Matteson’s law firm, Matteson represented a client in several personal and business matters over a number of years including 2017....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 22 de julio de 2025
In the Matter of Justin Allen Chin
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado Justin Allen Chin tras determinar que manejó indebidamente y a sabiendas fondos de clientes y descuidó a clientes en ocho casos de divorcio distintos, rechazando la recomendación de un funcionario de audiencias de imponer una suspensión más corta.
1. Procedural History Between May 31, 2023, and June 5, 2023, the State Bar filed eight formal complaints charging Chin with violations of Rules 1.2 (a) (a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued); 1.3 (a lawyer shall...
For SDBD No. 7704, the Special Master recounted that Chin represented the client in this disciplinary matter in a divorce action. The client sold the marital residence and, on April 13, 2021, $269,982.76 in proceeds from the sale were deposited into Chin’s IOLTA account. Between April and December 2021, Chin withdrew for his attorney fees $118,246.70 of the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de junio de 2023
WELCH v. PAPPAS RESTAURANTS, INC. (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aclaró que si un delito en la propiedad de un negocio era razonablemente previsible depende de la totalidad de las circunstancias, no solo de la prueba de un delito idéntico anterior, y que normalmente es una cuestión que decide el jurado.
IV. A party rendering security services to the proprietor may owe a duty of care to third parties on the bases set out in Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. 16 Because of our holding here, we need not reach the issue of whether apportionment to a nonparty would even have been permitted under the version of OCGA § 51-12-33 (b) in effect at...
BETHEL, Justice. Collectively, these cases present an opportunity to explore the scope and nature of the liability faced by premises owners, occupiers, and security contractors in cases involving personal injuries arising from third-party criminal conduct. Although the underlying appeals vary with respect to their facts and specific issues presented, the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de febrero de 2026
In the Matter of Bryan Matthew Pritchett
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado Bryan Matthew Pritchett después de que admitiera falsificar las firmas de sus clientes en cheques de compensación laboral y quedarse con el dinero, para luego mentirles a los clientes e ignorar la investigación del Colegio de Abogados del Estado.
11 Rule 1.15(I)(a) provides that, in relevant part, that “[a] lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other property. … Complete records of such account funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.