Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In December 2007, appellees Jordan and Renee Conley filed a product liability suit against appellant Ford Motor Company based on a single-vehicle rollover accident that occurred in 2006. The case went to trial in 2009. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford, and the Conleys did not file an appeal. Based on information about Ford's insurers that came to light more than a year later, the Conleys filed a motion for new trial in 2011. In early 2012, the trial court granted that motion. Ford filed an application for interlocutory appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. The Court of Appeals judges were divided evenly, so the case was transferred to the Supreme Court for decision. After careful consideration of the record and the contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court: "we reiterate the high hurdles that must be surmounted before an untimely, 'extraordinary' motion for new trial may be granted, but we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Conleys met that burden under the particular circumstances of this case." View "Ford Motor Co. v. Conley" on Justia Law

Kenneth Dubose appealed his conviction and sentence for felony murder. He raised multiple alleged errors at trial to challenge his conviction. Finding none, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Dubose v. Georgia" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice action, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether it was wrong for the appellate court to reverse the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs in this case accused an emergency room surgeon of having negligently delayed surgery that ultimately lead to the injured person losing a finger. Upon review of the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded there remained questions of fact that should have been presented to the jury, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. As such, the Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to reverse the trial court. View "Abdel-Samed v. Dailey" on Justia Law

In 2005, David and Yvonne Barker divorced. Seven years later, David filed a petition in a Gwinnett County court to enforce certain provisions of the original decree by contempt and to modify certain other provisions of the original decree. The Gwinnett County court, however, dismissed his petition for want of personal jurisdiction, noting that Yvonne moved from Georgia several years ago, and therefore out of the court's jurisdiction. David appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that since 2010, Georgia law has provided that a Georgia court may obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident if she had "been subject to the exercise of jurisdiction of a court of this state which has resulted in an order of alimony, child custody, child support, equitable apportionment of debt, or equitable division of property if the action involves modification of such order and the moving party resides in this state or if the action involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the domicile of the moving party." View "Barker v. Barker" on Justia Law

Appellant Waseem Daker was convicted by jury of malice murder, burglary, false imprisonment, aggravated battery and criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking. In 2012, appellant was sentenced to life in prison and a term of years. Since his conviction, appellant moved for a new trial and stated his intention to take additional legal action. During his incarceration, appellant contended he complained several times to prison officials about having no access to a law library or legal materials. In 2013, proceeding pro se, appellant attempted to file a petition for a writ of mandamus at Superior Court seeking to compel the Warden to provide him access to a law library. The trial court ordered the clerk not to allow filing of the mandamus petition because it concluded the petition was frivolous on its face. The trial court also denied appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellant filed an application for discretionary review and the Supreme Court granted iton the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying filing of applicant’s petition for mandamus. The Supreme Court found the trial court did err in denying appellant's petition. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Daker v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Appellant Lamario Barge appealed his felony murder conviction for the shooting death of Steven Bass. On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant argued: (1) the evidence presented against him was insufficient to support a felony murder charge; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant's conviction. View "Barge v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Melvin Washington, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, arguing: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of his bad character; and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Washington v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The parties in this case challenged an order awarding attorney fees under OCGA 9-15-14 for post-divorce litigation. Because the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion for fees and did not make the required findings specifying the improper conduct justifying the fee award, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Williams v. Becker" on Justia Law

Polo Golf and Country Club (a homeowners association), the Rymers (homeowners in the subdivision), and Forsyth County, all disputed which party was responsible for repairing the stormwater facilities in a subdivision. The stormwater facilities lying beneath the lots in the subdivision were not expressly dedicated to the county when originally built; and the county disclaimed ownership of any stormwater facility that did not lie under the county's streets. Polo did not own any stormwater facilities in the subdivision. Polo's covenants, recorded in 1987, provided that each homeowner had to maintain and repair the structures on his own property. The county enacted a stormwater management ordinance in 1996. In 2004, the Department of Engineering enacted an addendum contemplated by the ordinance. The section of the addendum at issue in this case required homeowners associations to take responsibility for stormwater management facilities on their property. The Rymers owned a house and lot in the Polo Fields subdivision. Because the interior of the Rymers' home was flooded on a number of occasions, the Rymers demanded that Polo and the county take action to fix the stormwater system. Polo responded by notifying the Rymers that it gave notice to the county that "neither the individual homeowner nor [Polo] should be held responsible for the maintenance." Polo later informed the Rymers that it would be selecting a contractor to repair the stormwater facilities in the entire subdivision, including the facilities on the Rymers' property, at Polo's expense. However, the repairs were never made and the Rymers experienced additional flooding. At no point prior to litigation did Polo assert that the Rymers were responsible for repairs to the stormwater facilities on the Rymers' lot. The Rymers brought suit against Polo and the county. Polo counterclaimed seeking, among other things, an injunction to compel the Rymers to repair the stormwater facilities under their property pursuant to the covenants. Polo also cross-claimed against the county, asserting the county could not require it to maintain the stormwater facilities because the addendum applied to new development, not Polo. Thereafter, pipes in the vicinity of the Rymers' property failed completely, causing flooding and sinkholes on other lots in the subdivision and additional flooding on the Rymers' property. The county issued a notice to comply and warning to Polo, directing Polo to make necessary repairs in the subdivision within 30 days. Polo did not make the repairs and the county issued a notice of violation, but no fines or citations were issued. Polo filed a separate declaratory judgment action against the county seeking a declaration that the addendum impairs the obligation of contracts and was unconstitutional and invalid. It also sought injunctive relief to prohibit enforcement of the addendum. The Rymers moved to intervene in that case; the motion was granted; and the trial court consolidated the two cases. After the parties filed motions and crossmotions for summary judgment, the trial court denied the Rymers' and Polo's summary judgment motions, but granted the county's summary judgment motion, finding the addendum can be enforced against Polo. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in denying Polo's motion for summary judgment in its dispute with the Rymers, but that the court erred in granting summary judgment for the county. View "Polo Golf & Country Club Homeowners' Association v. Rymer" on Justia Law

Appellant Randall Spearman was convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, and concealing a death in connection with the killing of his wife, Adrienne. On appeal, he contended that the trial court: (1) should have merged the guilty verdict for aggravated assault based on his choking the victim into his felony murder conviction; (2) erred in denying his request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction; and (3) violated OCGA 17-8-57 by making an impermissible comment to the jury. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that only Appellant's first contention had merit. The Court vacated the trial court on that claim of error, and affirmed with respect to the other two. View "Spearman v. Georgia" on Justia Law