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:Opiniones de la Corte Suprema 2024 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 72 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de junio de 2024
Hill 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 Newton por estrangular a su novia, rechazando sus impugnaciones a las pruebas, el manejo por el tribunal de primera instancia de las mociones de nulidad del juicio y la selección del jurado, y el desempeño de su abogado.
(b) On appeal, Hill argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying each motion for mistrial, contending that each piece of testimony discussed above, individually and when viewed collectively, deprived him of a fair trial. “Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the trial court’s sound discretion, and the trial court’s exercise of...
9 Although, as noted above, trial counsel did not move to strike six of the jurors about which Hill complains in Division 4, Hill argues only that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to strike five of those jurors; he does not include one of the jurors in this ineffective-assistance claim. so patently unreasonable that no competent...
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.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude that a one-year suspension is an insufficient level of discipline under the facts of this case. This Court has repeatedly recognized that “making false statements to the Bar during the disciplinary process is a very serious matter which typically results in, at least, a significant...
By virtue of his admission that he violated Rule 8.1 (a) in both SDBD Nos. 7407 and 7470, Hood has admitted that he knowingly made false statements to the Bar in his responses to two separate disciplinary matters. And, in addition, he admitted to violating Rule 8.4 (a) (4), which also involves engaging in professional conduct involving dishonesty, deceit,...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de octubre de 2024
Espinosa v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la denegación de la solicitud de un hombre para retirar su declaración de culpabilidad por apuñalar hasta la muerte al hijo de 15 años de su novia, rechazando su alegato de que su abogado debió haberle informado sobre una posible defensa de enajenación mental.
At the hearing, plea counsel testified that he had practiced in Georgia since 2007. He had worked both as a public defender and in private practice as a criminal defense attorney and had handled thousands of felony cases. Counsel explained the way he typically handled a murder case, i.e., meeting with the client, requesting discovery, taking discovery to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 17 de septiembre de 2024
Gallegos-Munoz v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aclaró que una regla de 1989 que exigía a los jueces determinar primero que acusaciones previas de abuso sexual eran 'probablemente falsas' antes de permitir que el jurado las conociera ya no aplica bajo el Código de Pruebas de 2013 del estado.
(a) Our holdings in Smith. “The main issue on appeal” in Smith was “whether [former] OCGA § 24-2-3, commonly referred to as [Georgia’s] rape-shield law, bar[red] admission of testimony regarding the victim’s alleged past false accusations against persons other than the defendant.” Smith, 259 Ga. at 135-136. We held that the rape-shield statute, which is now...
evidence and did not prohibit such evidence, because prior- accusation evidence does not “concern[ ] the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness.” Id. at 120-121 (2). We held that this holding in Smith continued in force after the enactment of OCGA § 24-4-412 as part of the 2013 Evidence Code. Burns II, 306 Ga. at 120-121 (2). This was because...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de julio de 2024
In the Matter of Curtis Lee Allen
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia rechazó la solicitud de un abogado de igualar una suspensión de diez días de Florida porque no adjuntó documentos disciplinarios clave de Florida ni demostró que había dejado de ejercer la abogacía durante esa suspensión.
when an attorney requests entry of a suspension or voluntary surrender order nunc pro tunc, it is the lawyer’s responsibility to demonstrate that they voluntarily stopped practicing law, the date on which their law practice ended, and that they complied with all the ethical obligations implicated in such a decision, such as assisting clients in securing new...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de abril de 2024
In the Matter of Paul Jason York
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia rechazó la suspensión de tres años propuesta para un abogado por falsificar las firmas de un juez y un fiscal, y consideró indebido permitirle reanudar el ejercicio de la abogacía mientras siguen pendientes cargos penales relacionados por falsificación.
substance abuse problems have been addressed, (b) providing proof that he is in compliance with the PDA, and (c) providing proof that he complied with his obligations to attend counseling and support meetings pursuant to the second condition. Moreover, the Special Master noted that if York is convicted of a crime arising from the same facts as this...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de mayo de 2024
Worth County School District v. Tibbetts
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la oferta de contrato a un maestro del condado de Worth era válida conforme a la ley estatal, lo que significa que su falta de firma a tiempo lo dejó sin contrato escrito y sin base para demandar al distrito escolar.
This Court has held that a contract term setting employee compensation is sufficiently definite where it is based on a method or formula for determining the exact amount of compensation. See Arby’s, Inc. v. Cooper, 265 Ga. 240, 241 (454 SE2d 488) (1995) (recognizing that “[t]o be enforceable, a promise of future compensation must be made at the beginning of...
Although the State Salary Schedule for the upcoming school year had not yet been published when the District offered Tibbetts his contract, the schedule from the prior year was still in effect. Moreover, the contract expressly provided that Tibbetts’s salary “may be subject to adjustment according to the anticipated budget for the 2019-2020 school year and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de mayo de 2024
SMITH v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un caso de decomiso civil de $1 millón contra una familia de reciclaje de metales debe regresar para más revisión porque la demanda del Estado no describió correctamente el delito de hurto por apropiación.
3. In the second certiorari question, we asked if the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, because the intent element of theft by taking could be inferred from the allegations of the second amended complaint, the second amended complaint satisfied OCGA § 9-16-12 (a)’s requirement that the complaint allege the essential elements of the offense. As...
We begin our construction of OCGA § 9-16-12 (a) by noting that the provision, which was enacted in 2015, see Ga. L. 2015, pp. 693, 702, 753, §§ 1-1, 4-1 (effective July 1, 2015), was modeled on a statutory precursor in the Criminal Code. That statutory precursor provided that an in rem forfeiture complaint must “allege the essential elements of the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de diciembre de 2024
Sumrall v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó el rechazo de la solicitud, presentada décadas tarde, de un hombre del condado de DeKalb para obtener trato retroactivo de infractor primerizo, al determinar que nunca obtuvo el consentimiento requerido del fiscal antes de presentarla y que la ley no viola sus derechos constitucionales.
320 Ga. 617 FINAL COPY S24A1368. SUMRALL v. THE STATE.
every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality. This approach not only reflects the prudential concern that constitutional issues not be needlessly confronted, but also recognizes that the legislature, like this Court, is bound by and swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. The courts will therefore...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de octubre de 2024
In the Matter of Curtis Lee Allen
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la solicitud corregida de un abogado radicado en Florida para una disciplina recíproca, imponiendo una suspensión de diez días con efecto retroactivo a su suspensión previa en Florida y reincorporándolo de inmediato.
Based on those facts, Allen requested, as substantially similar discipline, that this Court suspend his license to practice law in Georgia for ten days, nunc pro tunc and concurrent with his ten-day Florida suspension, and that the Court allow his reinstatement upon the entry of its opinion. But this Court rejected his original petition because Allen...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de marzo de 2024
Jennings v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Savanna Jennings por ayudar a orquestar la muerte de su abuelo, rechazando sus reclamos sobre pruebas indebidas y defensa legal ineficaz.
(i) Jennings contends that her trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to preserve her objection to the exclusion of Lieutenant Scott’s testimony, but as shown above, Jennings preserved her objection. Thus, we conclude that counsel did not perform deficiently. See Salvesen, 317 Ga. at 321 (4). (ii) Pretermitting whether Jennings’s trial counsel...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de marzo de 2024
McCullum v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas de Samuel Earl McCullum por la violación y el asesinato en 1998 de Monica Blackwell y la violación de otra mujer en 1999, rechazando sus argumentos de que la evidencia era insuficiente y que la demora previa al juicio y la acumulación de cargos violaron sus derechos.
7 In Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (136 SCt 709, 193 LE2d 639) (2016), the United States Supreme Court reiterated that, under Jackson v. Virginia, a challenge to the constitutional sufficiency of the evidence looks to “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the pros- ecution, any rational trier of fact could have found...
MCMILLIAN, Justice, dissenting in part. Under the well-established standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979), this Court deter- mines whether evidence is sufficient as a matter of constitutional due process by examining whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de agosto de 2024
In the Matter of Anthony O. Van Johnson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la entrega voluntaria de la licencia de un abogado del área de Atlanta después de que admitió falsificar la firma de una clienta en un cheque de acuerdo, quedarse con su dinero y abandonar los casos de otros clientes.
5 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides that it shall be a violation of the Rules for a lawyer to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” own use; and when he requested that his bank stop payment on the check he had written to Client One before she could deposit it. With regard to SDBD No. 7811, Van Johnson admits that...
3 Rule 1.15 (I) provides: (a) 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. Funds shall be kept in one or more separate accounts maintained in an approved institution as defined by Rule 1.15 (III) (c) (1)....
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,”...
11 This Rule provides: (1) A lawyer shall designate all trust accounts, whether general or specific, as well as all deposit slips and checks drawn thereon, as an “Attorney Trust Account,” “Attorney Escrow Account” “IOLTA Account” or “Attorney Fiduciary Account.” The name of the attorney or law firm responsible for the account shall also appear on all...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 22 de octubre de 2024
BAKER v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Prentice Baker y Verlaine Laguerre, y rechazó los argumentos de que los jurados necesitaban una advertencia especial sobre un testigo que podría haber sido cómplice y de que la falta de objeción de un abogado ante un testimonio de temor constituyó una defensa ineficaz.
2 Baker’s counsel attacked Ellis’s credibility at length, referred to Wimby’s testimony that Ellis “set [the murder] up,” and characterized Ellis as “a potential suspect” during opening statements and closing arguments. And in closing argument, Laguerre’s counsel told the jury that “nothing that [Ellis] says should make you feel good about making a decision...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de junio de 2024
Eleby v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas relacionadas con asesinato de un hombre del condado de Lamar por una invasión de hogar mortal, pero ordenó anular sus condenas por robo a mano armada y conspiración porque debieron fusionarse con otras condenas.
In addition, contrary to Appellant’s contention, the trial court did not err in sentencing Appellant for the separate assaults of Holmes and Johnson, as those counts do not merge with each other. See Sillah v. State, 315 Ga. 741, 758 (883 SE2d 756) (2023) (“If crimes are committed against different victims . . . , they do not merge.”). Finally, Appellant...
3. Relying solely on the non-binding, solo concurrence by Justice Stevens in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 867-868 (105 SCt 1668, 84 LE2d 740) (1985), Appellant argues that double jeopardy concerns prohibited his prosecution on the multi-count or “multiplicitous” indictment in this case. This claim, however, is without merit. First, the majority in...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de febrero de 2024
In THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY ORMAN MCCALEP (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado Timothy Orman McCalep tras determinar que abandonó repetidamente a sus clientes en casos penales y de divorcio, se quedó con sus honorarios y permitió que personal sin licencia manejara mal sus casos.
In SDBD Nos. 7641 and 7642, a mother hired McCalep in November 2021 to represent her son in a criminal matter. By March 2022, the grievants had paid McCalep over $18,000, including $5,000 for a bond hearing. McCalep purported to waive the son’s 9 Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to “provide competent representation to a client.” Rule 1.2 (a) requires lawyers to...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de diciembre de 2024
HOLLIS v. CITY OF LAGRANGE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un límite constitucional al poder de la legislatura sobre las tarifas de servicios públicos municipales no impide que los tribunales revisen demandas que alegan que esas tarifas son en realidad impuestos ilegales.
v. Ga. Dept. of Revenue, 301 Ga. 354, 356 (801 SE2d 9) (2017) (citation omitted). The constitutional provision at issue here—Paragraph V (d)— is part of Article III (titled “Legislative Branch”), Section VI (titled “Exercise of Powers”) of the Georgia Constitution. Paragraph V (d) expressly restricts the power of “[t]he General Assembly” to “regulate or fix...
City from assessing and collecting “such illegal tax.” In March 2023, the City filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying that its utilities charges were “illegal taxes,” and in May 2023, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. At a hearing on the motion, the City argued that the trial court was not authorized to regulate municipal...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 20 de febrero de 2024
WOODS v. BARNES (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los maestros del condado de Fannin no pueden usar la Cláusula de Menoscabo del estado para impugnar la pérdida de protecciones laborales que ocurrió cuando su sistema escolar se convirtió en un sistema de escuelas concertadas, porque esas protecciones ya habían sido limitadas por una ley de 1993 mucho antes de la conversión.
The Charter Schools Act of 1998 repealed and replaced the 1993 law. See Ga. L. 1998, pp. 1080, 1082, §§ 1, 3. Like the 1993 law, however, the 1998 law authorized individual public schools to convert into public charter schools governed by a “performance based [charter] contract approved by both state and local boards of education.” Ga. L. 1998, p. 1082, §...
Then, in 2007, the General Assembly passed the Charter Systems Act, which amended the Charter Schools Act to provide that local public school systems could convert into public charter systems, meaning that charter conversion was available for entire systems of schools and was no longer limited to individual schools. See Ga. L. 2007, pp. 185, 188, § 5. The...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de julio de 2024
In the Matter of Susan Michele Brown
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia rechazó una petición de la abogada Susan Brown para aceptar una sanción disciplinaria por su conducta como administradora de un fideicomiso, al resolver que las normas de ética que supuestamente violó no alcanzan a una abogada que actúa puramente como fiduciaria fuera del ejercicio de la abogacía.
That concern is implicated here, where the Bar concedes that Brown was not engaged in the practice of law and nonetheless seeks discipline on the basis of Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b), which purport to apply not only to a lawyer’s handling of funds and other property that are in her possession in connection with a legal representation of a...
In this case, however, we need not decide whether applying Rules 1.15 (I) (c) and 1.15 (II) (b) to Brown’s conduct could require an exercise of this Court’s authority that would exceed its constitutional limits, because we can apply the canon of constitutional doubt to interpret those Rules. “Under the canon of constitutional doubt, if a statute is...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.