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:2023 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 285 pasajes en 133 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de agosto de 2023
Reese v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de un hombre del condado de Fulton, rechazando sus reclamos de que el juez de primera instancia debió instruir al jurado sobre legítima defensa y sobre el testimonio de un cómplice, y de que su abogado defensor fue ineficaz.
“A jury instruction on the need for accomplice corroboration should be given if there is slight evidence to support the charge.” Stripling v. State, 304 Ga. 131, 136 (816 SE2d 663) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). An accomplice is someone who “shared a common criminal intent to commit the crimes in question with the actual perpetrators.” Ash v....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de febrero de 2023
WS CE RESORT OWNER, LLC v. HOLLAND
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que los propietarios de viviendas no pueden reclamar una servidumbre en un campo de golf cercano solo porque se etiquetó como 'campo de golf' en un plano de subdivisión y ellos compraron lotes haciendo referencia a ese plano.
These features share two related things in common. First, there is simply a well-settled understanding, reflected in more than a century of our decisions, that when these basic features are designated on a subdivision plat, there is ordinarily no reason to doubt that they are included as part of the unified plan for the subdivision and meant for the lot...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de octubre de 2023
STATE OF GEORGIA v. SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la prohibición del aborto a las seis semanas en Georgia no puede anularse por haber sido inconstitucional al momento de su aprobación solo porque entraba en conflicto con Roe v. Wade, decisión que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos revocó después en Dobbs.
ELLINGTON, Justice, dissenting. 1. The trial court correctly granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Section 4 and Section 11 of the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, Ga. L. 2019, p. 711, Act No. 234 (HB 481) (“the 2019 Act”) were void on the date enacted and can never be enforced, despite the...
affirmative duty to declare Georgia laws that violate the United States Constitution or our state Constitution void. See Aycock v. Martin, 37 Ga. 124, 127 (1867) (Because the Georgia Constitution provides that “legislative acts in violation of the Constitution are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them[,]” if the act at issue “is in violation of the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de agosto de 2023
HENDERSON v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de Demetre Mason y Frankland Henderson, rechazando impugnaciones sobre pruebas del juicio, la declaración de un coacusado y la decisión de juzgarlos juntos.
But it is not quite so simple. This limiting-instruction fix puts a great deal of faith in the jury’s ability to consider the co-defend- ant’s statement against the co-defendant, but to ignore it entirely when considering the guilt or innocence of the defendant. To be sure, jurors are instructed all the time in our legal system to compart- mentalize in this...
Brown instructed everyone to delete any pictures they had with Williams on Instagram. Harrell and Shardow rifled through Wil- liams’s purse and then burned it. The following day, Harrell and Singleton threw away some of Williams’s other belongings at an el- ementary school down the street. (b) At 4:14 a.m. on May 19, 2014, Alyssia Smith, who lived near the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de abril de 2023
In the Matter of Jason Lee Van Dyke
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia impuso una suspensión de tres años al abogado de Texas Jason Lee Van Dyke por declararse sin admitir culpabilidad en un reporte policial falso, con efecto retroactivo, por lo que queda reincorporado de inmediato.
The Special Master concluded that although the Court has imposed disbarment in cases where a lawyer engages in criminal conduct involving fraud, deceit, or false swearing, see In the Matter of Skandalakis, 279 Ga. 865 (621 SE2d 750) (2005), disbarment is not mandatory in cases involving dishonesty and moral turpitude when mitigating factors warrant a lesser...
3. Analysis Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Special Master’s recommendation of a three-year suspension is an appropriate penalty in this case. We note, however, that although the Special Master declined to impose reciprocal discipline for the Second Texas Incident and concluded that reciprocal discipline “based upon the remaining...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de diciembre de 2023
CLEMENTS v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato de London Clements y Eric Velazquez, ambos relacionados con la muerte a tiros de un agente del condado de Hall durante una serie de robos y una persecución policial en julio de 2019.
With respect to Lee’s testimony regarding the statements Garcia-Solis made to her in the hospital about the defendants’ plan to leave one person “to shoot the cop” while the others ran away, because Garcia-Solis was also on trial, these statements were the “admissions of a party opponent” and were not excluded by the hearsay rule. Lyons, 309 Ga. at 28 (8)...
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.
(c) Recommendation of Discipline. The Special Master concluded that disbarment remained the presumptive penalty because, sympathy aside, the mitigating factors were not sufficient to offset the aggravating factors. After a review of Davis II and other cases “involving violations of trust accounting rules and [GRPC] Rule 8.4,” the Special Master recommended...
3. Review Board’s Report and Recommendation. The Review Board concluded that the Special Master’s factual findings were supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous or manifestly in error and adopted them. The Review Board further concluded that the Special Master’s conclusions of law were correct and adopted them. The Review Board also affirmed...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 15 de marzo de 2023
TAYLOR, EXR. v. THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION, INC. (And Vice Versa)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó el límite de $250,000 en daños punitivos de Georgia en un caso de agresión sexual contra un centro de tratamiento de Georgia, y determinó que el límite no viola el derecho a un juicio con jurado, la separación de poderes ni la igualdad de protección ante la ley.
(a) Taylor offers evidence that juries were the arbiters of the large damages awarded in pre-1776 English cases. In all six of the pre-1776 English cases Taylor relies on, the jury decided the damages award—which suggests that the question of damages was a jury question, and one in which English courts were hesitant to meddle. See Beardmore, 95 Eng. Rep. at...
VIII. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting the Trial Court’s Determination of the Amount of Attorney Fees Devereux next argues that Taylor did not present sufficient evidence of the amount of attorney fees to which Taylor was entitled. As noted above in Division I, after the jury found that Taylor was entitled to attorney fees, the parties agreed that the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de agosto de 2023
In the Matter of Andrew Matteson
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia aceptó la petición renovada del abogado Andrew Matteson de una suspensión de seis meses, retroactiva a abril de 2019, después de que presentara pruebas de tratamiento de salud mental y de que reembolsó a los clientes perjudicados por su mala conducta.
Matteson provided with his sworn affidavit, in which he states that from April 2019 through October 2019 he did not work at all, his 2019 income tax returns as evidence that he was not fully employed in 2019. Based on these claims, Matteson now requests as discipline a six-month suspension from the practice of law and that this suspension be imposed nunc...
2 Rule 1.4 (a) provides that a lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; shall consult with the client about the means by which his objectives are to be accomplished; shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; shall promptly comply...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 31 de mayo de 2023
Knox v. State of Georgia
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una demanda de cinco profesores del Sistema Universitario que impugnaba la ley de 'armas en el campus' de Georgia de 2017 quedó sin objeto, porque la propia Junta de Regentes adoptó una política que permite armas en el campus conforme a esa ley.
10 In pertinent part, OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (c) (2017) as amended provided: The provisions of this Code section [making it unlawful for any person to carry or possess any weapon while within a school safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation furnished by a school] shall not apply to: ... (20) (A) Any weapons carry license holder...
(v) Not apply to faculty, staff, or administrative offices or rooms where disciplinary proceedings are conducted; (vi) Only apply to the carrying of handguns which a licensee is licensed to carry pursuant to subsection (e) of Code Section 16-11-126 and pursuant to Code Section 16-11-129; and (vii) Only apply to the carrying of handguns which are concealed....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de septiembre de 2023
Hamilton 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 Nuwrulhaqq Hamilton, dictaminando que las imágenes de vigilancia y los testimonios mostraron que él fue más que un simple espectador y que la omisión de una instrucción al jurado sobre buen carácter no afectó el resultado del juicio.
At trial, after the State finished presenting its case, the defendants moved for directed verdicts of acquittal on all counts. As to Hamilton, the trial court ultimately granted the motion as to the malice murder count but denied the motion as to the other counts. The court stated that its decision was based “largely” on Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862 (302...
317 Ga. 337 FINAL COPY S23A0670. HAMILTON v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 31 de mayo de 2023
RAFFENSPERGER v. JACKSON (And Vice Versa)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia anuló la Ley de Práctica de Consultores de Lactancia de Georgia, al dictaminar que limitar el trabajo remunerado de cuidado de lactancia a quienes tienen una certificación privada IBCLC viola las protecciones de debido proceso de la constitución estatal para ejercer una ocupación lícita.
research and evidence-based curriculum in a free 16-hour course. Approximately 1,000 individuals have participated in ROSE’s training course. In 2013, the General Assembly first considered a bill that would require lactation care providers to be licensed through the Secretary. See House Bill 363 (2013). Pursuant to OCGA § 43-1A-5 (a) (1), the Georgia...
(A) Lactation assessment through the systematic collection of subjective and objective data; (B) Analysis of data and creation of a lactation care plan; (C) Implementation of a lactation care plan with demonstration and instruction to parents and 6 By specifying that the named services “shall include, but not be limited to,” the list is not exhaustive....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 7 de febrero de 2023
SILLAH v. THE STATE (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó en gran medida las condenas por asesinato de Darnell Sillah y Andrew Murray por matar a un adolescente del condado de Gwinnett, pero dictaminó que dos de las condenas de Sillah por conspiración debieron haberse fusionado con los delitos consumados.
After Sillah’s sentencing, the United States Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (136 SCt 718, 193 LE2d 599) (2016), that Miller was a substantive rule of constitutional law that must be given retroactive effect in state collateral review proceedings. See id. at 212. In concluding that Miller must be applied retroactively, the Court...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de septiembre de 2023
MOTORSPORTS OF CONYERS, LLC v. BURBACH
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que, antes de que un tribunal pueda aplicar la ley de otro estado elegida en un contrato para decidir si una cláusula de no competencia es exigible, primero debe verificar si esa cláusula es razonable conforme a la propia ley de Georgia sobre pactos restrictivos.
Having taken a fresh look, we conclude that Georgia law remains the touchstone for determining whether a given restrictive covenant is enforceable in our courts, even where the contract says another state’s law applies. Our decisional law has long distinguished between restrictive covenants that are reasonable (in scope, duration, and geographic reach) and...
Soon after its enactment, OCGA § 13-8-2.1 was declared unconstitutional because its provision allowing for the “partial enforcement” of unreasonable restrictive covenants (i.e., blue- penciling) would have “breathe[d] life into” contracts that “[had] the effect of defeating or lessening competition,” in violation of Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. V (c) of the 1983...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato en el segundo grado (felony murder) de un padre del condado de DeKalb por la muerte de su hija de seis meses, y rechazó los cuestionamientos a las pruebas, las fotos de la autopsia, los límites al contrainterrogatorio y la falta de una instrucción al jurado sobre accidente.
5. Johnson next contends that the trial court “erred and violated the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation” by limiting the defense’s cross-examination of Cole on certain topics. Both the United States and Georgia Constitutions guarantee to an accused the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. See U. S. Const. Amend. VI; Ga. Const....
316 Ga. 672 FINAL COPY S23A0338. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2023
Regan v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia anuló, según se aplicó, una sentencia por delito grave de abuso sexual infantil, al determinar que un acusado de 17 años debía calificar para una sentencia por delito menor como la de quienes son condenados por abuso sexual infantil agravado contra una víctima de la misma edad.
received a more severe sentence than members of the comparison class for a less culpable offense. Dissent, p. 632 (c) (“[N]othing in the Equal Protection Clause . . . allow[s] courts to supersede legislative judgment about which crimes should result in harsher penalties.”). While it would be inappropriate to cast our gaze across the Criminal Code to ensure...
Nor can we see any other rational basis for prescribing misdemeanor sentences for the aggravated child molestation of 13- year-old victims, while also prescribing felony sentences for simple child molestation of 13-year-old victims. As explained above, permitting persons convicted of aggravated child molestation to receive misdemeanor sentences while...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 11 de octubre de 2023
MCBRAYER v. SCARBROUGH
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que colocar y sujetar a un hombre en el asiento trasero de un vehículo patrulla cuenta como 'uso' del vehículo, por lo que una demanda por muerte injusta contra un sheriff puede continuar a pesar de la inmunidad soberana.
The question here is what qualifies as the “use” of a “covered motor vehicle.” If “use” carries its ordinary meaning in these statutes, then an act is the “use” of a motor vehicle if a “covered motor vehicle” is being “employed” or “put into action or service.” That definition of “use” in this context would certainly include employing vehicles as...
9 See footnote 3. or statute, we consider text in context, not in isolation.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). See also OCGA § 36-92-1 (definitions). Scarbrough, however, has not identified any statutory text that supports a construction excluding any “use” beyond active transportation, and we see nothing in the chapter that suggests that “use” has a...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de agosto de 2023
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF WAYNE COUNTY v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la Autoridad Hospitalaria del Condado de Wayne no puede impugnar la constitucionalidad de la ley de Georgia sobre el acuerdo de opioides, porque la ley misma le quita a la autoridad el poder de presentar tales reclamos.
MCMILLIAN, Justice. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “District Court”) has certified two questions to this Court regarding whether a state entity can continue asserting claims against opioid manufacturers and distributors after the State of Georgia entered into a settlement with the pharmaceutical companies, and as...
Act, and in particular, the preemption provision, is unconstitutional because it takes away HAWC’s right to pursue its already-filed lawsuit and thus violates the Georgia Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. X (“Paragraph X”).2 As required by Fed. Rule Civ. P. 5.1,3 HAWC served a copy of its...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 19 de diciembre de 2023
Beard 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 un hombre del condado de DeKalb por disparar a su esposa, rechazando reclamos de que las instrucciones al jurado eran defectuosas y de que los errores de su abogado de juicio le costaron un juicio justo.
(c) Appellant also points to his trial counsel’s failure to request a no duty to retreat instruction. However, as explained above, Appellant has not shown that the lack of such an instruction affected 2 The current statute governing the admissibility of expert testimony in criminal cases is OCGA § 24-7-702 because the General Assembly repealed former OCGA §...
(e) Appellant also points to his trial counsel’s decision to withdraw his request for a jury instruction on defense of habitation. However, trial counsel testified at the motion for new trial hearing that based on his decades of experience as a criminal defense attorney, juries did not favor justification defenses based on a defense of habitation, and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de junio de 2023
Rountree 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 Houston, al resolver que nunca objetó adecuadamente la ausencia de instrucciones al jurado sobre homicidio voluntario y combate mutuo, y que dichas instrucciones no eran necesarias de todos modos.
2. As for Rountree’s contention that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter, he has shown no error, much less plain error. A person is guilty of voluntary manslaughter if he “causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder” and “acts solely as the result of a sudden, violent,...
316 Ga. 691 FINAL COPY S23A0531. ROUNTREE v. THE STATE.
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.