Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Barbara Ann Odom appealed a judgment that sustained a caveat to a will, entered after a jury found that the propounded will was invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, or monomania. Finding no error in the trial court's conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Odom v. Hughes " on Justia Law

The Stephens County Board of Commissioners decided to abandon a 3,000-foot-long, dead-end county road that ran along the side of a mountain and served no existing homes or businesses. Owners of some undeveloped lots on the Road and others sued the Board, and the trial court set aside the decision. Based on that ruling, the court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the Board to repair and maintain the Road. The court also ordered the Board to pay attorney fees and later granted summary judgment against the Board on its counterclaims. The Board appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court failed to give proper deference to the Board's decision to abandon the Road and reversed the trial court's decisions. View "Scarborough v. Hunter" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether physicians employed as faculty members at the Medical College of Georgia ("MCG") were entitled to official immunity in treating a patient at MCG's Children's Medical Center. Plaintiffs-Appellees Kenneth Jones and Clara Ramon filed a medical malpractice action against Appellants Prem Singh Shekhawat, M.D. and Wayne Mathews, M.D., along with other defendants, arising from treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' child at the Center in 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Appellants, concluding that they were entitled to official immunity under the Georgia Tort Claims Act. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Appellants, in treating Plaintiffs' child, were acting within the scope of their employment with the State, using the Supreme Court's holding in "Keenan v. Plouffe," (482 SE2d 253 (1997)). After further review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Keenan" should have been overruled, because it conflated the standard for official immunity with that for sovereign immunity. Utilizing the proper analysis, the Court held that Appellants were entitled to official immunity because they were acting within the scope of their state employment in rendering the medical care at issue. View "Shekhawat v. Jones " on Justia Law

Brothers-defendants Gerardo and Eduardo Sifuentes were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted of malice murder and related offenses in connection with a shooting that killed one person and injured two others. Both moved for a new trial, and both were denied. In addition, Gerardo challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for pretrial immunity based on self-defense. Upon review of the cases, the Supreme Court found no error, except in Eduardo's conviction for theft by taking; the Court found that count was not supported by the evidence, and therefore his convictions on two additional counts predicated on the theft by taking were in error too. The Court affirmed the judgment against Gerardo in its entirety, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment against Eduardo. View "Sifuentes v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant St. Simon's Waterfront, LLC ("SSW") sued its former law firm, Appellee Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, P.C. ("Hunter Maclean"), over the firm's representation in a commercial real estate venture. During the litigation, SSW sought production of communications between Hunter Maclean attorneys and the firm's in-house general counsel, which took place during the firm's ongoing representation of SSW, in anticipation of potential malpractice claims by SSW. Hunter Maclean asserted that the materials were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, but the trial court disagreed and ordered their production. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further consideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the same basic analysis that is conducted to assess privilege and work product in every other variation of the attorney-client relationship should also be applied to the law firm in-house counsel situation. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "St. Simons Waterfront, LLC v. Hunter, Maclean, Exely & Dunn, P.C." on Justia Law

Appellant Steven George Stratacos challenged four of his convictions for felony theft by deception based on his deceitful promises to perform various construction services. He claimed that the evidence presented at trial showed he provided some services but did not establish their value, and thus the evidence did not support the jury's guilty verdicts. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence presented was sufficient to support appellant's felony convictions, but insufficient to support even a misdemeanor conviction as to one. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. View "Statacos v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellee Johnnie Worsley was tried by jury and convicted of the rape and murder of his seventeen-year-old stepdaughter, Yameika Bell, and the murder of his wife, Flora Worsley. For each murder, Appellee was sentenced to death. Nearly fourteen years later, the trial court granted Appellee a new trial, finding that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of his 1998 trial. The State appealed. Finding the trial court granted the new trial in error, the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Appellee's death sentences. View "Georgia v. Worsley" on Justia Law

Wife filed for divorce in February 2010, and following a bench trial, the parties were divorced pursuant to a 2011 Final Order. The trial court reserved the issue of attorney fees at that time, but eventually denied Wife's motion for attorney fees in early 2012. The Supreme Court granted Husband's application to appeal with regard to the trial court's calculation of the parties' respective incomes for the purpose of determining alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's Final Order and remanded this case with direction that the trial court include in its Final Order a finding regarding each of the parties' respective gross monthly incomes. View "Demmons v. Wilson-Demmons" on Justia Law

Appellant Alstep, Inc. obtained a multimillion dollar loan from Appellee State Bank and Trust Company (SB&T) for the purchase of a sandwich shop, gas station and liquor store. Alstep fell behind on loan payments, and the Bank conducted a non-judicial foreclosure. SB&T was the highest bidder at the sale, and applied the proceeds of that sale to Alstep's loan balance. There was still a deficit. The Bank demanded immediate possession of the property, but Alstep refused. Despite receiving notice of a temporary restraining order, Alstep continued to operate the gas station and otherwise make use of the property. SB&T filed and served Alstep with an emergency motion for appointment of a receiver. SB&T cited three grounds in support of its motion: (1) that Alstep converted rent from the property's tenant (the sandwich shop) that should have gone to SB&T; (2) that Alstep was depleting the property that served as collateral for its debt; and (3) that SB&T needed to take control of the property to guard against its potential liability under state and federal environmental regulations as the owner of the gas station. Appellant never filed a response to the motion, but ultimately challenged the trial court's appointment of a receiver. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had broad discretion in deciding whether to appoint a receiver, and found no abuse of that discretion. View "Alstep, Inc. v. State Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Gabriel Evans was found guilty of kidnapping with bodily injury, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in connection with the beating of Aretha Perkins. Evans' convictions were upheld on appeal. After filing an unsuccessful habeas petition to challenge his conviction in 2001, Evans filed a second habeas petition in 2009, seeking relief based on the Supreme Court's then-controlling decision in "Garza v. State," which established new factors for assessing the asportation element as required for kidnapping. Analyzing the Garza factors, the habeas court granted relief, finding that the duration of the movement of the victim was short, the movement was incidental to the aggravated assault, the movement appeared to be an inherent part of the aggravated assault, and the movement did not place the victim in more danger than she was already in at that point, and set aside the conviction and sentence for kidnapping with bodily injury. The warden appealed. Finding no error in the second habeas court's analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sellars v. Evans" on Justia Law