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:2020 Quitar filtros
Se encontraron 79 documentos.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 14 de mayo de 2020
BARROW v. RAFFENSPERGER (Two Cases)
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que el secretario de Estado Brad Raffensperger canceló correctamente la elección de 2020 para el puesto del magistrado Keith Blackwell, porque la renuncia aceptada de Blackwell garantiza una vacante que eliminará el período para el cual los votantes elegirían a alguien.
(b) Beskin’s case is not moot. At the hearing held by the trial court, the Secretary argued that Beskin’s claims were moot because she had qualified as a candidate in the May 19 election for Justice Bethel’s office and thus had availed herself of an adequate alternative remedy to the mandamus relief that she was requesting. In response, Beskin asserted that...
In Beskin’s case, however, we need not decide whether her qualifying for the election for Justice Bethel’s office constituted an adequate alternative remedy to her qualifying for the election for Justice Blackwell’s office, or whether having qualified for the election for Justice Bethel’s office, OCGA § 21-2-136 would preclude her from withdrawing her...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 18 de mayo de 2020
JACKSON v. RAFFENSPERGER
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revivió la demanda de una consultora de lactancia contra la ley de licencias de Georgia, al dictaminar que la Constitución de Georgia protege un derecho a trabajar en la profesión que uno elija y que consultoras de lactancia igualmente calificadas pueden ser tratadas como iguales ante la ley.
CLCs work in many settings, including in people’s homes. CLCs are spread across Georgia and are therefore more available to rural Georgians and minority Georgians than are IBCLCs, who are concentrated in metro Atlanta and other urban areas and often are nurses and other healthcare professionals who lack the time to provide full-time breastfeeding support to...
The General Assembly acknowledges that the application of specific knowledge and skills relating to breastfeeding is important to the health of mothers and babies and acknowledges further that the rendering of sound lactation care and services in hospitals, physician practices, private homes, and other settings requires trained and competent professionals....
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de abril de 2020
Srm Group, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que una empresa demandada en un tribunal puede solicitar honorarios de abogado por litigio de mala fe incluso cuando su contrademanda era obligatoria por ley, no solo cuando era opcional.
1. Background. The facts, as set forth by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) filed suit against SRM Group, Inc. (“SRM”), seeking to recover unpaid premiums due under a workers’ compensation insurance policy. In response, SRM asserted counterclaims against Travelers for breach of contract,...
4. With Byers set aside, and given our determination in Division 2, it is clear that SRM was entitled to seek attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11, as it asserted independent claims for breach 6 We also disapprove of Maree v. ROMAR Joint Venture, 329 Ga. App. 282, 297 (6) (d) n.18 (763 SE2d 899) (2014); and Murtagh v. Emory Univ., 321 Ga. App. 411, 417 (3)...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de junio de 2020
Raines v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que un juez, no un jurado, puede decidir si una persona que cometió un asesinato siendo adolescente es tan 'irremediablemente corrupta' que puede recibir cadena perpetua sin libertad condicional.
To that end, it is undisputed that in interpreting the Eighth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has held that a sentence of death cannot be imposed on a juvenile. Roper, 543 U.S. at 578. And although it has not held that a sentence of life without parole is barred categorically for juvenile offenders, it has, through Miller, “rendered life without...
In other words, although the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment precedents impose separate constitutional restrictions on the types of punishment that may be imposed on a juvenile, they do not answer whether OCGA § 16-5-1 (e) (1) satisfies the Sixth Amendment. Indeed, they do not speak to what punishment a state statute authorizes for a given offense or...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de febrero de 2020
State v. Hamilton
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la decisión de un tribunal de primera instancia de otorgar a Marlina Hamilton inmunidad frente al enjuiciamiento por la muerte de su exesposo, al determinar que ella demostró mediante la preponderancia de la evidencia que actuó en defensa propia.
308 Ga. 116 FINAL COPY S19A1363. THE STATE v. HAMILTON.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 10 de febrero de 2020
State v. Williams
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia restableció la condena de un hombre por abuso sexual agravado, al determinar que, aunque el juez de primera instancia dio una instrucción al jurado legalmente incorrecta sobre la capacidad de consentir de una niña pequeña, el error no afectó el resultado del juicio dada la solidez de la evidencia.
subsequent decisions in Duncan and Laster, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court’s instruction on underage consent was clearly erroneous when coupled with the charge on aggravated sexual battery. In Watson, we recognized that lack of consent was a textual element of the crime of sexual battery. 297 Ga. at 719. We also determined that the...
played for the jury. During the interview, Hesterlee showed E. H. drawings of male and female subjects, and had her identify various body parts. E. H., pointing at the genitals on the drawings, said that “Poppy” (Williams) touched her and she touched him, more than once, in places that were not okay, but that “he said it was okay” and “we don’t want grammy...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2020
Premier Health Care Investments, LLC v. Uhs of Anchor, L.P
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una agencia estatal de salud excedió su autoridad al exigir a un hospital obtener un nuevo permiso antes de reasignar camas existentes a un programa psiquiátrico, porque la ley estatal no incluye la reasignación de camas entre lo que requiere esa aprobación.
15 Citing dicta from Albany Surgical, P.C. v. Ga. Dept. of Community Health, 278 Ga. 366, 368 (602 SE2d 648) (2004), Southern Crescent argues that the General Assembly acquiesced to the Psychiatric Rule when the Rule was submitted to legislative counsel pursuant to OCGA § 31-6-21.1 (b) and the General Assembly did not object to it. See OCGA § 31-6-21.1 (b)...
(e) The constitutional doubt canon further weighs in favor of interpreting “include” as introducting an exhaustive list as it is used in OCGA §31-6-40 (a). We have concluded that there are strong textual and contextual indicators that the term “include,” as used in OCGA § 31- 16 Southern Crescent also argues that the Psychiatric Rule is consistent with...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de febrero de 2020
Johnson v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que un probando por delito grave acusado de asesinato aún puede alegar defensa propia si su posesión del arma que usó estaba a su vez justificada conforme a la Ley de Protección de Porte Seguro de Georgia, y devolvió el caso al tribunal de primera instancia.
11-127.2 (a); the unlawful possession of a firearm in restricted access areas of commercial service airports, OCGA § 16-11-130.2 (a); the unlawful possession of a handgun by a person under the age of 18 years, OCGA § 16-11-132 (b); and the unlawful carrying of a handgun by a person with a valid license to carry but without proof of the license in his...
Read in its statutory context, the most natural and reasonable understanding of OCGA § 16-11-138 is the one that Johnson proposes. By its plain terms, OCGA § 16-11-138 affords “an absolute defense” to “any violation” of Title 16, Chapter 11, Article 4, Part 3. That “absolute defense” requires a showing of “[d]efense of self or others, as contemplated by and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de marzo de 2020
Stubbs v. Hall
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la desestimación de la petición de habeas corpus de un hombre del condado de Hancock por presentarla demasiado tarde, aunque encontró que el tribunal de primera instancia había calculado mal la fecha exacta en que su condena se volvió firme para ese propósito.
We thus conclude that the General Assembly did not include a tolling provision in OCGA § 9-14-42, much less a provision specific to alleged violations of subsection (d). And especially considering the comprehensive and prescriptive statutory scheme the General Assembly enacted to govern habeas corpus, we have no authority to judicially create such a remedy....
5. We Decline to Apply a Novel Equitable Tolling Doctrine to OCGA § 9-14-42 (c) in Georgia. We have by now established that the text of OCGA § 9-14-42 does not provide Stubbs the remedy he seeks. Stubbs nonetheless asks this Court to provide an equitable remedy for his untimely habeas petition by either applying the doctrine of equitable tolling and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 21 de diciembre de 2020
Armstrong v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato de Jhakeem Armstrong, dictaminando que la evidencia de pandillas usada para establecer su motivo fue admitida correctamente y que los errores relacionados no afectaron el resultado del juicio.
310 Ga. 598 FINAL COPY S20A1364. ARMSTRONG v. THE STATE.
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 29 de junio de 2020
FRAZEN v. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ATLANTA
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la aprobación por un tribunal de primera instancia de hasta $1.25 mil millones en bonos de ingresos para ayudar a financiar el proyecto de reurbanización de The Gulch en el centro de Atlanta, rechazando los reclamos de ciudadanos contra el proceso y la estructura de financiamiento.
the creation of enterprise zones by counties or municipalities, or both. Such law may provide for exemptions, credits, or reductions of any tax or taxes levied within such zones by the state, a county, a municipality, or any combination thereof. Such exemptions shall be available only to such persons, firms, or corporations which create job opportunities...
The Intervenors nonetheless contend that OCGA § 36-88-6 (g) (4) exceeds the authority vested in the General Assembly by the 32 The provision states in full: The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which it shall deem necessary and proper...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 6 de abril de 2020
State v. Holland
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia revocó un fallo que anulaba la ley de Georgia sobre homicidio vehicular de primer grado por darse a la fuga, y sostuvo que la ley no viola la igualdad de protección ni el debido proceso.
“apply them as one.” Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557, 560 (1) (738 SE2d 584) (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). Similarly, at least when addressing substantive due process claims, this Court generally has analyzed challenges arising under the due process clauses of the federal and state Constitutions together. See State v. Nankervis, 295 Ga. 406,...
Before 2008, the crime of first-degree vehicular homicide predicated on hit-and-run included as an element that the 4 The trial court applied the rational basis test, and the parties do not dispute that this was the proper test. defendant’s actions in leaving the scene were a contributing cause of the victim’s death. See OCGA § 40-6-393 (a) (1999); see also...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 28 de septiembre de 2020
NORMAN v. XYTEX CORPORATION
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que una pareja que compró esperma de un banco de esperma no puede demandar por la mera existencia de su hijo, pero puede presentar reclamos de fraude y protección al consumidor vinculados a daños específicos causados por el historial oculto del donante.
As another example, the Normans also may be able to recover damages for the difference in price between the cost of the sperm they received and the fair market value of the sperm that Xytex told them they were getting. Xytex represented that Donor #9623 was one of its “best” donors, but the allegations regarding his background show otherwise. (e) The...
This statute is codified in the Code section limiting the practice of medicine, including artificial insemination, to licensed physicians and surgeons. See generally OCGA § 43-34-37. This statute applies only to the medical procedure of artificial insemination and does not include the negligent sale or screening of sperm. Because Xytex only sold sperm and...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de enero de 2020
Chavez v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó las condenas por asesinato y actividad de pandillas de un hombre del condado de Fulton, pero revocó su condena por posesión de arma de fuego como persona en libertad condicional de primer delincuente porque su libertad condicional ya había vencido cuando ocurrió el tiroteo.
Even if trial counsel could have performed deficiently in failing to stipulate to Chavez’s status as a first-offender probationer, however, Chavez has not shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for that failure to stipulate. This Court has held that prior convictions involving firearms and minor drug offenses are not likely to inflame the...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 2 de noviembre de 2020
QUYNN v. HULSEY
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia resolvió que la ley de prorrateo de culpa de Georgia anula una antigua regla de la Corte de Apelaciones que permitía a un empleador evitar reclamos de contratación y supervisión negligente simplemente admitiendo que era legalmente responsable de los actos de su empleado.
OCGA § 51-12-33 provides, in pertinent part: (a) Where an action is brought against one or more persons for injury to person or property and the plaintiff is to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed, the trier of fact, in its determination of the total amount of damages to be awarded, if any, shall determine the percentage of fault of...
(2) The notice shall be given by filing a pleading in the action designating the nonparty and setting forth the nonparty's name and last known address, or the best identification of the nonparty which is possible under the circumstances, together with a brief statement of the basis for believing the nonparty to be at fault. (e) Nothing in this Code section...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 24 de agosto de 2020
Brooks 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, pero anuló un cargo por armas de fuego porque el estado nunca probó que su delito grave anterior involucrara un arma, y devolvió ese cargo para que se dicte nueva sentencia.
4 See Old Chief v. United States, 519 U. S. 172, 174 (117 SCt 644, 136 LE2d 574) (1997) (excluding full record of prior felony conviction when “the name or nature of the prior offense raises the risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations”). the use of a firearm, and the title of the crime — aggravated assault with intent to rob — does not suggest...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 5 de octubre de 2020
Fulton County v. Ward-Poag
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la demanda de una empleada del condado de Fulton por represalias contra denunciantes no puede desestimarse mediante sentencia sumaria solo porque ella inicialmente no la reveló en su caso de bancarrota y luego la valoró allí en $1.
1. Factual and Procedural History. Viewed in the light most favorable to Ward-Poag as the non- moving party for purposes of summary judgment in the superior court, the relevant facts of record and the procedural history of this case are as follows. Fulton County hired Ward-Poag as the entertainment manager for the Wolf Creek Amphitheater in 2012. In May...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2020
In the Matter of James Caleb Clarke III
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia certificó a James Caleb Clarke III, un exabogado que entregó su licencia en 2002 tras admitir que robó dinero de una sucesión que administraba, como apto para ejercer la abogacía nuevamente.
309 Ga. 187 FINAL COPY S20Z0712. IN THE MATTER OF JAMES CALEB CLARKE III.
Upon consideration of the entire record, we likewise conclude that Clarke has shown that he is entitled to be certified as fit to practice law in Georgia. Accordingly, as it appears that Clarke has satisfied all requirements for approval of his application for certification of fitness, see Bar Admissions Rules, Part A, Section 10, this Court grants Clarke’s...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 13 de enero de 2020
White v. State
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia confirmó la condena por asesinato y la sentencia de cadena perpetua sin libertad condicional de un adolescente del condado de Houston que confesó haber matado a un amigo como parte de un pacto de suicidio, sin encontrar error ni en la admisión de sus declaraciones ni en el estándar de sentencia utilizado.
5 The Court noted in Medina that the Mathews balancing test was first conceived to address procedural due process claims arising in the context of administrative law, that the Court had invoked Mathews to resolve due process claims in criminal law cases on only two occasions, and that it was not at all clear that Mathews was essential to the results reached...
White also argues that Veal requires that the trial court find beyond a reasonable doubt that he is irreparably corrupt before sentencing him to life without parole. But nothing in Veal says that, and nothing in Miller or Montgomery says that, either. Moreover, language in Miller and Montgomery is contrary to White’s argument that those cases demand that...
Opinión de la Corte Suprema · Supreme Court of Georgia · 16 de junio de 2020
Crowder v. State of Georgia
Resumen de Georgia Commons (escrito con IA): La Corte Suprema de Georgia dictaminó que la ley de Georgia permite a los funcionarios notificar a propietarios de fuera del estado publicando un aviso en un periódico en casos de decomiso civil, pero los tribunales deben primero atender cualquier objeción de debido proceso y no pueden omitir un fallo requerido sobre una moción de declaración más definida.
Crowder argues, however, that an examination of the statutory context requires a different interpretation. Under his reading, OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) must be considered alongside OCGA § 9-16- 12 (b) (2). Specifically, he argues that because paragraph (b) (3) says only that “notice of the complaint” shall be published and does not say that “service may be...
OCGA § 9-16-13 (b) (1) and (2) provide that for in personam forfeiture proceedings, “(1) [e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Code section,” “service of the complaint and summons shall be as provided by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Code Section 9-11-4[7]; and (2) [i]f the defendant is unknown or resides out of this state . . . , notice of the...
Afinar los resultados
Los números cuentan los documentos que encontró esta búsqueda.