Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant Troy Lee and appellee Vanessa Vickers Arthur were married in April 1995 and are the parents of two minor boys. Husband filed for divorce in October 2010, with Wife filing a counterclaim for divorce shortly thereafter. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered the final judgment and decree on January 31, 2012 that awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children, with Wife given primary physical custody and ultimate decision-making authority. The final judgment also made an equitable division of marital property that, among other things, awarded the marital home to Wife after finding that Husband stated he did not want it. Without making a finding regarding the value of the marital estate, the final judgment made the award of the marital home subject to Wife's obligation to assume and hold Husband harmless from the existing indebtedness on the property. It also required Wife to use her best effort to refinance the indebtedness in order to remove Husband from the indebtedness and generate funds to pay Husband for his interest in the home and, if not successful in refinancing the home, to pay Husband with interest from the date of the decree. The final judgment granted Wife an indefinite amount of time to pay Husband should the refinancing be unsuccessful. Husband objected. Husband filed a motion for new trial which was denied. Finding fault with the trial court's equitable division of marital property and with the grant of physical custody of the children to Wife, Husband filed an application for discretionary review of the trial court's final judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial. In granting the application, the Supreme Court expressed concern with: whether the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to Husband's request made pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52; and whether the trial court erred in its division of marital property by allowing Wife to delay the ultimate division of the marital home's value for an indefinite period of time. An obligation of a party relating to the equitable division of property may not be extended for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment that provides an indefinite period of time for the Wife to pay Husband was reversed. Husband's request for a new trial was moot in light of the Court's decision as the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Arthur v. Arthur" on Justia Law

This appeal ultimately concerned the constitutionality of OCGA 32-6-75.3. Although the Supreme Court originally found that a prior version of the statute violated the gratuities clause of the state constitution, the Court later found the statute to be constitutional after it was amended by the Legislature to indicate that "outdoor advertising provides a substantial service and benefit to Georgia and Georgia's citizens as well as the traveling public." In 2007, the City of Columbus, Gateways Foundation, Inc., and Trees Columbus, Inc. challenged applications for vegetation maintenance permits submitted by CBS Outdoor, Inc., to the Georgia Department of Transportation ("GDOT"). In 2011, the Legislature passed HB 179, which amended 32-6-75.3 by enlarging the "viewing zone" that an advertiser may clear around a billboard and altered the number and type of trees which may be removed. After the passage of HB 179, Columbus filed an amended petition, challenging the constitutionality of the revised statute and GDOT's Manual of Guidance ("MOG") which established the tree-valuation procedure to determine amounts to be paid to the State to allow removal of trees blocking the visibility of existing billboards. In January 2012, the Superior Court entered an interlocutory injunction enjoining GDOT from issuing any vegetation management permits throughout the State until a final adjudication of the pertinent issues. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. The Superior Court rulings generated three appeals. In Case No. S13A0079, Columbus argued that the trial court erred by determining that OCGA 32-6-75.3 and the valuation methods employed in the MOG were constitutional. In Case No. S13A0080, CBS Outdoor and Outdoor Advertising Association of Georgia, Inc. ("OAAG"), an intervenor in these cases, challenged the trial court's decisions to continue a statewide injunction against the issuance of vegetation permits and to defer a ruling on Columbus's equal protection claim. In Case No. S13X0081, GDOT contended, among other things, that the trial court erred by determining that take-down credits extended under the statute violate the gratuities clause. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings in Case No. S13A0079 and Case No. S13A0080, but, in Case No. S13X0081, the Court reversed the trial court's determination that the take-down credits violated the gratuities clause. View "City of Columbus v. Georgia Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Lori Ann Goodman challenged her convictions and sentences for malice murder and theft by taking in connection with the 2005 death of Debra Dressler. Goodman, Dressler, and Rose Richardson became acquainted in a homeless shelter in Virginia. The home of Dressler's husband was near, and Dressler wanted to collect her dentures and a checkbook from there, so the three women drove there in Dressler's car. An argument ensued at the husband's home and in the end, Mr. Dressler was killed. The three women fled in Dressler's vehicle; they acquired beer and crack cocaine. On their journey, Richardson and Goodman became aggravated by Dressler's behavior: "at one point, Dressler was to have sex with a truck driver in exchange for money, but came back from the truck driver's vehicle with only hamburgers from a fast food restaurant." At a motel in South Carolina, Goodman and Richardson decided they needed to "get rid of [Dressler]" by poisoning her with prescription pills, aspirin, and alcohol. Richardson and Goodman put the drugs in a large bottle containing a cocktail and gave it to Dressler, who drank it. Because the toxic cocktail seemed to have no effect on Dressler, the Richardson and Goodman took a belt and choked Dressler with it; Richardson tried to put a ball of yarn over Dressler's mouth and nose and then put a pillow over Dressler's face. After some minutes, the two women became tired and stopped; they could not determine if Dressler was still alive. After resting, Goodman again choked Dressler, this time with a bandana, and Richardson again placed a pillow over Dressler's face. Richardson removed Dressler from the car and Goodman retrieved a pair of 24-inch bolt cutters from the trunk; Goodman struck Dressler three times on the head with the bolt cutters, and Richardson took them and did the same. Goodman and Richardson were later apprehended in Louisiana. Richardson pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and testified at Goodman's trial. Finding the evidence sufficient to support her conviction, and that Goodman's trial counsel's performance was not deficient, the Supreme Court affirmed Goodman's convictions and sentences. View "Goodman v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Michael Holton appealed the grant of an interlocutory injunction prohibiting him from working in an executive capacity for a particular competitor of his former employer for one year. He also challenged the trial court's ruling that he would inevitably disclose his former employer's trade secrets and confidential information in violation of the trade secrets act and his confidentiality covenant if he went to work for the competing business. Because a stand-alone claim for the inevitable disclosure doctrine of trade secrets is not cognizable in Georgia, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the order enjoining Holton from the inevitable disclosure and use of trade secrets. On the remaining issues, the Court dismissed as moot his challenge to the order enjoining him from working for the competitor until October 2012 and affirmed the part of the order enforcing the confidentiality covenant. View "Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP" on Justia Law

Appellant-mother appealed a superior court order that refused to modify a foreign jurisdiction's award of custody to Appellee-father. The mother contended that the superior court erred in refusing to take jurisdiction of the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the superior court's dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jackson v. Sanomi " on Justia Law

Appellant Tracey McKay appealed his conviction for the shooting death of the victim John Thrash after a failed donut shop robbery in 1989. Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, and asserted his trial counsel was ineffective. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, and that counsel's performance was not deficient, the Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "McKay v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Anthony Jabbar Shaw was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of Baron Harbin. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Shaw appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury that one acting in defense of self had no duty to retreat, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the briefs and record, the Supreme Court found no error, and affirmed. View "Shaw v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Carl and Nekissta Williams were divorced in June 2009. The terms of the original divorce decree held that Nekissta was to have primary physical custody of their children, and Carl was to pay a certain amount each month to Nekissta as child support, an amount based in part on a finding that Carl at that time had a gross monthly income of $4,166.67. Sixteen months later, Carl filed a petition to modify his child support obligation, claiming that he had lost his job since the divorce. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Carl by then had a gross monthly income of only $3,400, and based on this finding, the trial court granted his petition to modify the divorce decree. Nekissta appealed, contending that the finding of gross monthly income was in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant Alana Johnson was convicted of one count of felony murder in connection with the October 2010 death of her three-year-old son, Shane Hurd. She appealed the denial of her motion for new trial contending the evidence presented against her was insufficient, evidentiary errors, and trial counsel ineffectiveness. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson. v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2007, Christopher Leach was convicted of child molestation, and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, followed by five years on probation. As a condition of his probation, Leach was forbidden to change his residence without the consent of his probation officer. After Leach was released from prison in 2012, he asked his probation officer for her consent to his living in a mobile home in Walton County. The mobile home was located on a farm within 1,000 feet of a school, and the probation officer refused to consent to Leach living there. Leach sought a writ of mandamus to compel his probation officer to give her consent, but the trial court dismissed the petition, finding, among other things, that Leach has other adequate legal remedies. Finding no error with the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leach v. Malcom" on Justia Law