Georgia CommonsSearch every collection
Search Georgia Commons
Bills, Supreme Court opinions, the Code and the two constitutions, and House and Senate meeting transcripts, in one search. Ask in plain words: the search ranks passages by meaning as well as by their words.
Filters:Supreme Court of Georgia Clear filters
Found 131 matching documents.
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 1, 2024
In THE MATTER OF JOHN L.G. HERBERT, JR. (Four Cases)
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney John L. G. Herbert, Jr. after he defaulted on disciplinary charges accusing him of taking about $850,000 entrusted to him by overseas real estate investors.
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deposited in and administered from a trust account.” 8 This Rule provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o funds shall be withdrawn from such trust accounts for the personal use of the lawyer...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 5, 2021
Department of Transportation v. Mixon
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that a constitutional provision requiring the government to pay for property it takes or damages can also let landowners sue for an injunction, not just money, in certain circumstances.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 15, 2024
RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed a $20 million default judgment against an investment adviser, ruling that the woman collecting on a judgment used the wrong garnishment form because the company is not a 'financial institution' under Georgia law.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · March 18, 2025
Arnold v. Alexander
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled it lacks 'original jurisdiction' to directly hear a mandamus petition from an indigent pro se litigant challenging the Fulton County Clerk's filing policies, and sent the case to the Court of Appeals instead.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · February 17, 2026
Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia clarified how courts should decide whether a third party, rather than the insured, actually obtained a life insurance policy, a question that determines whether the policy is an illegal wager on a human life.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · February 15, 2021
In the Matter of David R. Sicay-Perrow
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney David R. Sicay-Perrow after finding he mishandled and misappropriated client settlement funds, including money belonging to other clients, and misled clients about repayment.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · June 21, 2023
EFFICIENCY LODGE, INC. v. NEASON
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated a ruling requiring an extended-stay motel to use court eviction proceedings against long-term residents, holding that lower courts used the wrong legal test to decide whether the residents were tenants or hotel guests.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · May 18, 2020
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia answered three certified questions about Georgia's agricultural dealer licensing law, ruling that a produce company acting as a dealer must be licensed and that failing to get a license can bar it from enforcing a business contract in court.
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 §...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · June 11, 2024
In the Matter of Diana Y. McDonald
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred a solo practitioner who lied to a client's counterparty and to the State Bar about $4 million held in her trust account while secretly spending much of it herself.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · December 9, 2025
In the Matter of Je'nita Lane
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted an attorney's voluntary surrender of her law license, effectively disbarring her, after she admitted mishandling client trust funds in two cases involving overdrawn accounts and an unpaid Medicaid lien.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · June 29, 2023
WELCH v. PAPPAS RESTAURANTS, INC. (Two Cases)
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia clarified that whether a crime on a business's property was reasonably foreseeable depends on the totality of the circumstances, not just proof of an identical past crime, and is usually a jury question.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 15, 2024
In the Matter of William Slater Vincent
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted a Fulton-area attorney's petition for voluntary discipline over trust account violations, ordering a public reprimand instead of the suspension the State Bar had sought.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · March 21, 2023
In the Matter of Willie George Davis, Jr
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ordered attorney Willie George Davis Jr. disbarred after finding he mishandled his sister's estate and his orphaned nephew's trust funds and repeatedly defied probate court orders.
(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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · August 13, 2024
In the Matter of Anthony O. Van Johnson
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia accepted an Atlanta-area attorney's voluntary surrender of his law license after he admitted forging a client's signature on a settlement check, keeping her money, and abandoning other clients' cases.
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)....
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · December 21, 2020
Nuckles v. State
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that a hidden camera video from a nursing home patient's room can be used as evidence against a nurse charged in his death, because the patient counted as an occupier of the property and the nurse had no reasonable expectation of privacy while working there.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · July 22, 2025
In the Matter of Justin Allen Chin
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia disbarred attorney Justin Allen Chin after finding he knowingly mishandled client funds and neglected clients in eight separate divorce cases, rejecting a hearing officer's recommendation of a shorter suspension.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · December 14, 2021
RCC WESLEY CHAPEL CROSSING, LLC v. ALLEN
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that private landowners have no common-law right to boot or otherwise immobilize vehicles parked without permission, but sent a class-action lawsuit over such booting back for further review.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 4, 2022
In the Matter of Karen Lynn Pass
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia issued a public reprimand with conditions to attorney Karen Lynn Pass for mishandling client trust funds and failing to properly supervise a nonlawyer employee who stole client money.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · July 2, 2024
In the Matter of Susan Michele Brown
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected a petition by attorney Susan Brown to accept discipline for her conduct as a trust administrator, ruling that the ethics rules she supposedly violated do not reach a lawyer acting purely as a fiduciary outside the practice of law.
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...
Supreme Court opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia · October 14, 2026
CHATHAM COUNTY v. SMITH
Summary by Georgia Commons (AI-written): The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that Chatham County's fire protection fee, charged per parcel and by building square footage, was actually an illegal tax because it was not based on property value as Georgia law requires for such taxes.
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...
Narrow the results
Counts are of the documents this search found.