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 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 131 documentos.
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deposited in and administered from a trust account.” 8 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer...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 · 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.
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 · 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 · 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...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de febrero de 2021
In the Matter of David R. Sicay-Perrow
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia inhabilitó al abogado David R. Sicay-Perrow tras determinar que manejó indebidamente y se apropió de fondos de acuerdos de clientes, incluyendo dinero perteneciente a otros clientes, y engañó a clientes sobre el reembolso.
According to the State Bar, the Board conducted an investigation into this matter, which revealed the following facts. In January 2013, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, a husband and wife (the “clients”) retained Sicay-Perrow’s law firm, Sicay- Perrow & Knighten, P.C. (the “firm”), to represent their interests in a civil collections case....
The State Bar found that the facts revealed by the Board’s investigation demonstrated that Sicay-Perrow violated Rule 1.15 (I) (a) and (c)1 when he made disbursements to the clients from his 1 Rule 1.15 (I) (a)says in pertinent part that “[a] lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer’s possession business...
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
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 · 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.
In addressing Rule 1.15 (I) (c), the Special Master recited that the Rule commands that “[u]pon receiving funds or other property in which a . . . third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the . . . third person” and “shall promptly deliver to the . . . third person any funds or other property that the . . . third person is entitled to...
The Special Master first recited that Rule 1.15 (II) (a) requires that “all funds held by a lawyer in any [ ] fiduciary capacity shall be deposited in and administered from a trust account.” Rule 1.15 (II) (b) requires both that records of such accounts be maintained so as to “reflect at all times the exact balance held for each client or third person” and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 9 de diciembre de 2025
In the Matter of Je'nita Lane
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la entrega voluntaria de la licencia de abogada de una letrada, lo que equivale a su inhabilitación, después de que admitiera haber manejado indebidamente fondos fiduciarios de clientes en dos casos que involucraban cuentas sobregiradas y un gravamen de Medicaid impago.
Rule 1.15(II)(a) states in relevant part: “All 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.” Rule 1.15(II)(b) states in relevant part: “No personal funds shall ever be deposited in a lawyer’s trust account, except that unearned lawyer’s fees...
Regarding SDBD No. 8026, Lane admits that, in October 2023, her IOLTA account was overdrawn by $65,488.95 after she withdrew funds for her personal and business use. She later replaced the improperly withdrawn money by depositing personal funds into her IOLTA account. Additionally, while her IOLTA account was overdrawn, she deposited several settlement...
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.
was breached. See, e.g., Jackson v. Post Properties, Inc., 236 Ga. App. 701, 703 (2) (513 SE2d 259) (1999) (whether the extra window locks offered by the apartment complex were sufficient to demonstrate ordinary care and whether the plaintiff’s rape “was the result of the flimsy nature of the [builder-installed] windows” were issues for the jury’s...
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 · 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 · 21 de marzo de 2023
In the Matter of Willie George Davis, Jr
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia ordenó la inhabilitación del abogado Willie George Davis Jr. tras determinar que manejó indebidamente el patrimonio de su hermana y los fondos en fideicomiso de su sobrino huérfano, y desafió repetidamente las órdenes del tribunal de sucesiones.
(1) consultation with the lawyer, pursuant to Rule 1.0 (c); (2) having received in writing reasonable and adequate information about the material risks of and reasonable available alternatives to the representation[;] and (3) having been given the opportunity to consult with independent counsel. 3 GRPC Rule 1.15 (I) (a) provides: A lawyer shall hold funds...
4 GRPC Rule 1.15 (I) (c) provides: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other...
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.
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 · 21 de diciembre de 2020
Nuckles v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un video de cámara oculta en la habitación de un paciente de un asilo de ancianos puede usarse como prueba contra una enfermera acusada en su muerte, porque el paciente contaba como ocupante de la propiedad y la enfermera no tenía una expectativa razonable de privacidad mientras trabajaba allí.
2. With regard to her first contention, Nuckles argues that the phrase “owner or occupier of real property,” regardless of its context, is a legal term of art referring only to a person who has ultimate control over the property and is responsible for its maintenance, protection, and guests. Because Dempsey had no such control of, or responsibility for, the...
10 See, e.g., OCGA § 16-1-3 (10) (defining the term “owner” as used in Title 16 as “a person who has a right to possession of property which is superior to that of a person who takes, uses, obtains, or withholds it from him and which the person taking, using, obtaining, or withholding is not privileged to infringe.”). adopted the Security Exception as...
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...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de diciembre de 2021
RCC WESLEY CHAPEL CROSSING, LLC v. ALLEN
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los propietarios privados no tienen ningún derecho de derecho consuetudinario para inmovilizar con cepos u otros medios vehículos estacionados sin permiso, pero devolvió una demanda colectiva sobre dicha práctica para su nueva revisión.
1. Pertinent facts and procedural history. (a) Factual background. The relevant facts, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, see Allen, slip op. at 4-5, are as follows: On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff parked his vehicle in a parking lot located at 2440 Wesley Chapel Road (the “Wesley Chapel Lot”) in DeKalb County, and nonparty State Impound Authority, LLC...
Further, even if the common-law principle of distress damage feasant otherwise applied to the circumstances of this case and allowed the vehicle immobilization practice at issue, Defendants’ claim would nevertheless fail because, as noted above, this common- law right required a trespass and proof of actual damage. See Bonner, 78 Ga. at 52 (“[T]he plaintiff...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 4 de octubre de 2022
In the Matter of Karen Lynn Pass
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia emitió una reprimenda pública con condiciones a la abogada Karen Lynn Pass por manejar mal fondos fiduciarios de clientes y no supervisar debidamente a una empleada no abogada que robó dinero de clientes.
2 Rule 1.15 (II) (b) provides in relevant part that “[n]o personal funds shall ever be deposited in a lawyer’s trust account, except that unearned attorney’s fees may be so held until the same are earned. . . . Records on such trust accounts shall be so kept and maintained as to reflect at all times the exact balance held for each client or third person. No...
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.
type of trust account from which a lawyer should administer the identified funds, dictates certain recordkeeping requirements, and sets out rules prohibiting commingling a lawyer’s personal funds with other funds in her possession and prohibiting the lawyer’s withdrawal of those funds for her own personal use (with some exceptions). With that overview, we...
With regard to the specific Rules at issue in this case, we turn first to the text of Rule 1.15 (I) (c), which provides that: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the...
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...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.