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 2026 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 117 documentos.
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.
On December 20, 2006, Mr. Shapiro and the Trust applied for a premium financing loan from Barclays. On January 4, 2007, Ameritas received a formal application for a $6 million dollar policy on Mrs. Leone’s life whereby Mr. Shapiro, as trustee on behalf of the Trust, was the policyowner and beneficiary. The Policy’s application was signed in Atlanta,...
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...
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...
In an ex parte session on May 4, 2009, the defense reported that, although some experts were being paid, those with pay concerns were asking Fulton County to guarantee payment. Additionally, because the trial was scheduled for May 28, many of the potential experts were telling the CDO that they did not have enough time to perform testing on Clark and...
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 · 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...
PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Special Master LaRae Dixon Moore, who recommends that respondent Bryan Matthew Pritchett (State Bar No. 588325), who was admitted to the State Bar in 2001 and is currently suspended from the practice of law in Georgia, be disbarred. Because Pritchett defaulted in...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de mayo de 2026
In the Matter of Clifford E. Hardwick, IV
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó a Clifford E. Hardwick, IV al determinar que mintió a los investigadores del Colegio de Abogados del Estado sobre haber permitido que un antiguo cliente penal usara sus cuentas bancarias para desviar $655,000 de 14 víctimas de fraude.
(b) Rule Violations The Special Master concluded that Hardwick violated Rules 1.15(I)(a) by failing to hold the funds he received separate from his own funds and failing to keep the funds in an approved attorney trust account; 1.15(II)(a) by failing to deposit the funds he received into an attorney trust account and by failing to ad- minister the funds from...
4 Hardwick’s accounts were not IOLTA accounts. agreements. Hardwick retained a 2% commission on the money wired from third parties into his bank accounts with respect to some of the transactions. The Special Master further recounted that, during the evidentiary hearing, Hardwick testified that he received money wired from third parties into his bank...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2026
Calhoun v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena de James Calhoun por asesinato con malicia por el homicidio a tiros de Pamela Williams, rechazando sus reclamos sobre pruebas del juicio, procedimientos del jurado y el desempeño de su abogado, en gran parte porque no respaldó muchos de sus argumentos.
Link, the subdivision’s security officer, testified that, during the evening of November 30, as he patrolled the neighborhood in his car, he saw a group of young men, including Calhoun, Banks, and Sims, standing in front of Sims’s house. Sims’s and Calhoun’s houses are near each other on the same street, and Banks was staying with Sims. Link saw Calhoun,...
showing error on appeal. As to those claims of error that Calhoun does support with argument, they fail for the reasons set out below. In Sims v. State, ___ Ga. ___, S26A0143, slip op. at 2-8 (Ga. June 2, 2026), wherein we affirmed the convictions of one of Calhoun’s co-defendants, we set forth the facts of this case as follows: Viewed in the light most...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de marzo de 2026
In the Matter of Charles Bruce Singleton, Jr
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó a un abogado que abandonó a tres clientes, no reembolsó honorarios y se quedó con el dinero de un acuerdo por lesiones personales de un menor a pesar de múltiples órdenes judiciales de entregarlo.
(iii) SDB Docket No. 7830 Around 2021, Singleton represented a minor in a personal injury action and received $35,388.83 in settlement funds belonging to the minor, which Singleton deposited in his trust account. The conservator for the minor made several requests to Singleton to release the settlement funds in Singleton’s possession. Singleton did not...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de octubre de 2026
In the Matter of Hakeem Bertrand Brock
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó de forma definitiva al abogado del área de Atlanta Hakeem Bertrand Brock por manejar mal sus cuentas fiduciarias y maltratar a clientes en cinco casos distintos, incluido el desvío del acuerdo por muerte injusta de una madre en duelo.
2. Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (a) Allegations and the Special Masters Findings (i) SDBD Nos. 7531 & 7718 These two matters concern Brock’s mishandling of his trust accounts. Regarding SDBD No. 7531, the State Bar alleged that it received notice that two checks from an “Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account” (“IOLTA”) belonging to Brock had been...
Based on this evidence and Brock’s second petition, the 2 The State Bar filed a formal complaint against Powell regarding the same matters and charging many of the same Rule violations. Powell submit- ted a petition for voluntary discipline requesting a public reprimand, which this Court rejected. See In the Matter of Powell, S25Y1162 (Aug. 26, 2025)....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de marzo de 2026
In the Matter of Oksana Klymovych
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un funcionario de audiencias disciplinarias se equivocó al negarle a una abogada solista ucraniano-estadounidense la posibilidad de reabrir su rebeldía después de que no presentara un documento a tiempo, y devolvió su caso para una decisión sobre el fondo.
With respect to the issue of default, the record shows that Klymovych was retained by a client in the summer of 2022 and deposited client funds in an IOLTA account. In December 2022, Klymovych returned the funds to the client after the client filed a grievance with the State Bar. In early 2023, the State Bar and Klymovych exchanged emails regarding the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de agosto de 2026
In the Matter of Fiame Michelle Simpson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia suspendió por tres años, en lugar de expulsar, a una abogada del área de Atlanta después de que ella hiciera mal uso de su cuenta fiduciaria de clientes e intentara ocultar la mala conducta presentando registros bancarios alterados al Colegio de Abogados Estatal.
9 In terms of specifics, Simpson admitted on cross-examination that between September and December 2017, she paid “about nine utility bills” from her IOLTA account. Additionally, the records show that between January 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, there were multiple transfers of money via check and cash into and out of Simpson’s general IOLTA account from...
10 The Special Master concluded that Simpson “admitted to the conversion of client funds when she admitted there were times that she spent unearned fees that were in her IOLTA account on her personal needs,” citing the statute for criminal theft by conversion. See OCGA § 16-8-4 (“A person commits the offense of theft by conversion when, having lawfully...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de octubre de 2026
CHATHAM COUNTY v. SMITH
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la tarifa de protección contra incendios del condado de Chatham, cobrada por parcela y según los pies cuadrados del edificio, era en realidad un impuesto ilegal porque no se basaba en el valor de la propiedad, como exige la ley de Georgia para esos impuestos.
1. The Fire Fee was a tax. “The Georgia Constitution protects taxpayers by limiting the methods and means by which Georgia governments can impose taxes.” Homewood Assocs. v. Unified Gov’t of Athens- Clarke County, 323 Ga. 62, 77 (2025) (Peterson, C. J., concurring). “The distinction between a tax and a fee is not one of names but of substance.” McLeod v....
Drawing from McLeod, Bellsouth identified four factors that Georgia courts should consider in determining whether a governmental fee or charge is in substance a tax. The factors to be considered are that a tax is “(1) a means for the government to raise general revenue based on the payer’s ability to pay (i.e., income or ownership of property), without...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2026
Banks v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y robo con allanamiento de Jonathan Banks, uno de tres hombres declarados culpables en una invasión de hogar en el condado de Fulton que terminó con el homicidio a tiros de Pamela Williams.
Monica Salinas, who lived in the Cooks Landing subdivision in Fulton County, testified that on September 18, 2013, she heard a doorbell ring and saw two young men standing outside her front door. When she did not answer the door, they rang her doorbell “20, 15 times consistently, just constantly ringing the doorbell.” Moments later, her dogs started barking...
After Banks shot Williams, he and the others fled from the house on foot and, shortly thereafter, sped out of the neighborhood in their cars. Banks hid at the home of Sims’s cousins, Cassandra and Joseph Hockaday. According to the Hockadays, who gave statements to the police and testified at trial, Banks admitted to them that he, Calhoun, and Sims had...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de octubre de 2026
Culpepper v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato con malicia de un hombre del condado de Dougherty, al concluir que la identificación de un testigo presencial y las amenazas previas eran pruebas suficientes, y rechazó sus alegatos de que su abogado del juicio fue ineficaz.
During Culpepper’s motel stay, something was stolen from him, and he blamed Miller for the theft. 2 According to the motel manager, around the time of his checkout, Culpepper reported a theft, but motel staff took no action. And on the night of the shoot- ing, Culpepper referred to the theft again when speaking to a long-time motel resident, Jessica Alred....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de mayo de 2026
In the Matter of Matthew Jason Anderson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado Matthew Jason Anderson después de que no pagara fondos de acuerdos que debía a clientes y proveedores médicos en cuatro casos de lesiones personales y mintiera al respecto a una clienta y al Colegio de Abogados del Estado.
1 Rule 1.4(a)(4) provides that “[a] lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” The maximum penalty for a violation of this Rule is a public reprimand. 2 Rule 1.15(I)(b) provides that “a lawyer may not disregard a third per- son’s interest in funds or other property in the lawyer’s possession if: the interest is known to the...
4 Rule 1.15(II)(a) provides that “[e]very lawyer who practices law in Georgia … and who receives money or property on behalf of a client or in any other fiduciary capacity, shall maintain or have available one or more trust accounts as required by these rules. All funds held by a lawyer for, or related to the representation of, a client and all funds held...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de marzo de 2026
Jackson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave de Quintavius Jackson en un homicidio en una gasolinera del condado de DeKalb, pero devolvió el caso porque el tribunal de primera instancia impuso indebidamente una sentencia de cadena perpetua sin libertad condicional en dos cargos de asesinato en la comisión de un delito grave en lugar de uno.
During a subsequent search of Jackson’s home, the police saw a pile of clothing that included a navy-blue shirt like that worn by Jackson and a burgundy Polo hat matching that worn by Dorsey during the shooting. The hat was swabbed for DNA. Subsequent testing showed that the DNA on the hat matched DNA samples taken from both Jackson and Dorsey. The police...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de febrero de 2026
FLAKES v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Jeffrey Flakes pero revocó el nuevo juicio otorgado a su coacusado Curtis Williams, dictaminando que no era obligatorio descalificar a la fiscal aunque una vez había representado a ambos hombres como defensora pública.
The State also introduced footage from security cameras that were positioned around Jones’s home. As the footage was played, Lieutenant Anthony Locey described what was shown. The footage, which had no sound, showed a person arriving at Jones’s front door at 12:09 a.m. on the night of the murder. The person left, then re- turned at 12:51 a.m., left again,...
Those claims of error fail. The witness’s identification of Flakes in the surveillance video was unlikely to have affected the outcome of the trial because the other evidence of guilt was fairly strong and because the jury could see for itself what the video showed. Contrary to Flakes’s argument, the trial court did apply the balancing test of Rule 403...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 12 de marzo de 2026
GINES v. THE STATE (Three Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de tres hombres en la muerte por disparo de Kadarius Medlock, rechazando reclamos sobre restricciones en las piernas, instrucciones al jurado, evidencia faltante y representación legal ineficaz.
The crime of burglary is committed when the defendant “without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein … enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another … .” OCGA § 16-7-1(b). Gines complains that the State failed to prove the “without authority” element of the crime because there was no...
Evidence also established that the maroon vehicle used in the crimes was rented by Gines’s girlfriend at his request. The vehicle was rented from a cash car-rental establishment on April 19, two days before the crimes. The owner of the rental company testified that, as part of the company’s “polices and procedures,” a renter is not permitted to take the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de junio de 2026
Tabb v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Joseph Tabb en la muerte a tiros de un conductor contratado, rechazando sus alegatos de que la evidencia era insuficiente, que fue indebidamente encadenado durante el juicio y que su abogado fue ineficaz.
2. Tabb failed to preserve his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring him to be visibly shackled. Tabb argues that the trial court abused its discretion in requiring him to be visibly shackled during his trial, because the trial court failed to balance the need for security measures with protection of Tabb’s constitutional rights and...
(d) Trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the visible shackling of Tabb. Tabb argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s order that Tabb be shackled during his trial. This claim fails. Prior to trial, the trial court questioned Tabb and trial counsel as to their interactions, and trial counsel...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 3 de marzo de 2026
In the Matter of Joseph William Cloud
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó permanentemente al abogado Joseph William Cloud después de que abandonara a dos clientes, manejara mal un pago fiduciario de $12,000 y no respondiera a ninguna parte del proceso disciplinario del Colegio de Abogados del Estado en su contra.
(b) Based on the GRPC Rule violations charged by the Formal Complaints, which were deemed admitted by Cloud’s default, the Special Master concluded that Cloud’s conduct violated Rules 1.3,2 2 Rule 1.3 states that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client,” and defines “reasonable diligence” to mean that “a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2026
Rease v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en delito grave de un hombre del condado de Fayette por la muerte por estrangulamiento de su vecina, rechazando reclamos sobre pruebas excluidas, testimonio de ADN, comentarios judiciales y el desempeño de su abogado.
8 OCGA § 17-16-5(a) provides: Upon written demand by the prosecuting attorney within ten days after arraignment, or at such time as the court permits, stating the time, date, and place at which the alleged offense was committed, the defendant shall serve within ten days of the demand of the prosecuting attorney or ten days prior to trial, whichever is...
“With respect to closing argument, defense counsel is per- mitted wide latitude and is not ineffective simply because another attorney might have used different language or placed a different emphasis on the evidence.” Anthony v. State, 311 Ga. 293, 298 (2021) (cleaned up). In closing, counsel emphasized his theory that Rease’s DNA was found under Perry’s...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.