Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellee, as executrix of the estate of her father, and her sister, brought a breach of contract action in which they asserted that their father's second wife, appellant, contractually waived her right to retain the proceeds of their deceased father's employer-provided 401K plan and life insurance policy by entering a settlement agreement incorporated into an order of separate maintenance executed approximately a year prior to the father's death. At issue was whether the court of appeals erred in finding that decedent's children could maintain a state law action against the decedent's surviving spouse to recover proceeds distributed to the spouse as the beneficiary of the decedent's ERISA-governed benefits plans, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., where the state law claims were based on a contention that the spouse waived her rights to such proceeds. The court answered in the negative, concluding that, in this case, since the proceeds of the ERISA-covered plans were paid out to appellant and were no longer in the control of the plan administrator, the trial court erred when it dismissed appellees' breach of contract claim against appellant. View "Appleton v. Alcorn, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of malice murder. The court held that the district court did not err in overruling defense counsel's objection to certain testimony based on improper bolstering where the testimony was admissible under the "rule of completeness" and rejected defendant's remaining evidentiary claim. The court also rejected defendant's four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Westbrook v. State" on Justia Law

Husband filed a motion for contempt against his former wife, for closing a business checking account in violation of the parties' 2008 divorce decree. The trial court found wife in criminal and civil contempt for interfering with the operation of the business that had been awarded to husband as part of the divorce. The court granted wife's application for discretionary appeal to address whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding her in contempt. Because wife did not violate the terms of the decree or the agreements between the parties, the court reversed the judgment. View "Scherer v. Testino" on Justia Law

This case arose from a trust dispute where appellants subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel Judge Stephens to allow them to appeal from an order dismissing their appeal. The court held that appellants have shown that they have a clear legal right to file a direct appeal from the order dismissing their properly filed direct appeals from the June 7, 2011 order and that granting mandamus relief would not be nugatory because the notices of appeal from the June 7, 2011 order were proper and valid. However, in order for mandamus relief to be granted, appellants must also show that they have no alternative adequate remedy at law. In the present case, Judge Stephens has denied permission to appellants for them to file such an appeal. Therefore, as appellants were unable to obtain "judicial review of the judicial act in question, this case presents the unusual situation where mandamus is a viable means of seeking review of a judicial action." Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the mandamus petition, and the court directed the trial court to issue the writ of mandamus. View "Sotter v. Stephens; White, et al. v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant appealed after the denial of a motion for a new trial. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which he was convicted and rejected defendant's claim that the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the pistol used to shoot the victim. View "Rockholt v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence after being stopped for a traffic violation. The court granted a writ of certiorari to determine when the results of a state-administered Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test must be given to a defendant accused of driving under the influence in violation of OCGA 40-6-391. It was undisputed in this case that the officer delivered to defendant the required implied consent notice in an accurate and timely manner thereby informing him of his right to an independent test. Having done so, the State was under no constitutional duty to immediately inform defendant of the results of the State-administered breath test. Because the court held that the procedures followed by the State comported with the fundamental fairness required by due process, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "Padidham v. State" on Justia Law

Attorneys Jordan and Moses formed a two-member partnership in 2003 for an indefinite term and in 2006, Jordan communicated to Moses that he was contemplating ending the relationship, and later that month, stated that he was doing so. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper legal analysis to the claim of wrongful dissolution of a partnership. Given that the Court of Appeals cited the disapproved language regarding "new prosperity" under Wilensky v. Blalock, it was unclear whether that court considered the evidence as indicative solely of Jordan's state of mind at the time he decided to dissolve the partnership, with a coincident intent to deprive Moses of some unidentified prospective business opportunity of the partnership, or whether the Court of Appeals considered the above evidence as showing that Jordan intended, through the dissolution, to retain a fee that was misappropriated from partnership funds. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. View "Jordan v. Moses" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and his request for a subpoena. Because the court held that the arresting officer's detention of defendant was a seizure and there was no evidence that the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop, the court reversed. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

The court granted the application for discretionary appeal of husband from the trial court's order on a petition for contempt in a divorce case. The court held that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's finding that husband was in contempt of his obligation to refinance the couple's house. The court held, however, that the trial court's contempt order set forth an unequal division of the marital residence and this was an improper modification of the property division set forth in the settlement agreement. Further, the trial court's directive that husband sell or liquidate assets to pay down the mortgage was a modification of the settlement agreement and divorce decree. View "Jett v. Jett" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of malice murder in connection with the beating death of the victim. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar transaction evidence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law