Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case concerns a small grocery store on Allgood Road in Marietta and, specifically the parcel of land on which that store sat. Ray Summerour owned the land for nearly three decades; the City of Marietta wanted to acquire the land to build a public park. When the City was unable to negotiate a voluntary sale of the parcel, it resolved to take the land by eminent domain, and it filed a petition to condemn the property. Following an evidentiary hearing before a special master, the superior court adopted the return and entered an order of condemnation. Summerour appealed, and the Court of Appeals set aside the condemnation order, reasoning that when the City attempted to negotiate a voluntary sale of the land, it failed to fulfill its obligations under OCGA 22-1-9. The Court of Appeals directed that the case be remanded for the superior court to consider whether the failure to comply with Section 22-1-9 amounted to bad faith. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, and held that compliance with Section 22-1-9 was an essential prerequisite to the filing of a petition to condemn, that the City failed in this case to fulfill that prerequisite, and that its petition to condemn, therefore, must be dismissed, irrespective of bad faith. View "City of Marietta v. Summerour" on Justia Law

Appellant Leland Lutz (“Husband”) appeals the final judgment and decree of divorce, as well as the trial court’s order granting attorney’s fees to appellee Deborah Lutz (“Wife”). After review, the Georgia Supreme Court determined that language in the body of the divorce decree misrepresented Husband’s salary. Therefore the divorce decree was reversed in part. Since the final judgment and decree of divorce was partially reversed to the extent it relied on an inaccurate statement of Husband’s income, the alimony award and the attorney’s fee order were also reversed. The matter is remanded so that the trial court could reconsider its rulings on alimony and attorney’s fees. View "Lutz v. Lutz" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute among the children of decedent Dorothy Rita Beam concerning the distribution of her estate. Decedent’s daughter, Dorothy Marian Meadows (“Marian”), filed a petition to probate Decedent’s 2014 will and codicil, and Marian’s siblings, John Beam, Jr., Margaret Beam, and Jayne Heggen (collectively, “Caveators”), filed a caveat alleging that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute the will and codicil. After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Caveators, finding that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity and awarding attorney’s fees to Caveators. Marian appealed, arguing, among other things, the evidence did not support a finding that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed and reversed. View "Meadows v. Beam" on Justia Law

Appellant Temon Williams was convicted of malice murder and other crimes in connection with the October 2012 stabbing death of Shawn Doughty. Williams appealed, asserting insufficiency of the evidence, erroneous admission of expert testimony, erroneous admission of evidence seized during a search of his residence, and ineffectiveness of his trial counsel for various reasons. Although the Georgia Supreme Court found no error regarding Williams’s contentions, the Court vacated in part due to a sentencing error. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Marlon Jones appealed his convictions stemming from the death of his daughter Jania Parker-Jones. Appellant argued on appeal the evidence was insufficient to convict, his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance, and the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed on the merits but vacated in part to correct a sentencing error. View "Jones v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Ahmad Brown challenged his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Deonta Moore. Appellant contended on appeal that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected these contentions and affirm Appellant’s convictions, but vacated the trial court’s judgment in part and remanded for the correction of a sentencing error. View "Brown v. Georgia" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a divorce settlement agreement between Anita and Benjamin Howard. After the final divorce decree was issued on April 28, 2016, Wife filed a petition for contempt against Husband, alleging that he failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement that was incorporated into the decree. The trial court denied the petition, and we granted Wife’s application for discretionary review. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred when it ruled that Husband was not in contempt for failing to ensure that Wife was designated as the survivor beneficiary of his pension plan. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Howard v. Howard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff RES-GA McDonough LLC (“RES-GA”) brought a legal malpractice action against Taylor English Duma LLP and two of its attorneys (collectively, “Taylor English”). RES-GA contended that Taylor English failed to timely assert a Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claim, thus damaging RES-GA’s ability to satisfy its judgment against a debtor. Taylor English moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that RES-GA had failed to allege a viable underlying cause of action to support its malpractice claim. The trial court agreed and granted Taylor English’s motion to dismiss. Finding no reversible error, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. View "RES-GA McDonough, LLC v. Taylor English Duma, LLP" on Justia Law

In 2015, appellees Brenton Jefferson, his brother Santez Jefferson, Demarcus Cawthorne, Jamal Arnold, and Lee Davis were charged with, among other things, attempted murder, aggravated battery, kidnapping, and violations of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. In connection with the State’s efforts to build a case against Appellees, the State gave notice of its intention to introduce into evidence at trial four certified copies of convictions relating to various gang members pursuant to OCGA 16-15-9. Santez filed a “Motion in Limine to Declare OCGA 16-15-9 Unconstitutional and to Bar the Introduction of Third Party Convictions,” arguing that the statute on its face violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The remaining Appellees adopted the motion at a 2016 hearing on the matter. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order finding that the admission of the third party convictions and the prior conviction of Cawthorne in the Appellees’ trial would violate their Sixth Amendment rights to confront the witnesses against them. The trial court granted appellees’ motion to declare the statute unconstitutional, and excluded the use of any of the third party convictions. The State appealed. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded the trial court correctly determined that OCGA 16-15-9 was unconstitutional on its face to the extent that it authorized the admission of the convictions of non-testifying non-parties as evidence of a criminal street gang. View "Georgia v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

Defendants Elgerie Mary Cash and Jennifer Michelle Weathington were tried jointly before a jury in October 2013 and found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of Lennis Jones. Each woman was sentenced to life in prison for malice murder and a consecutive term of five years in prison for the firearm possession. Claiming that Jones accidentally shot himself, Cash and Weathington each filed a motion for new trial, which motions were subsequently amended. Following a joint hearing on the motions in 2014, the superior court entered separate orders granting each defendant a new trial, and then approximately a week later issued a joint amended order granting new trials to the defendants and vacating their convictions and sentences. The superior court did so after finding that the defendantsreceived ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and based upon the general grounds, i.e., that the verdicts were contrary to the principles of justice and equity and decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence. The State appealed the grants of new trials to defendants, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. Upon return of the remittiturs, Weathington filed her “Double Jeopardy Plea in Bar,” claiming that the evidence at trial was insufficient, and consequently, the State could not again put her in jeopardy for the same offenses; Cash adopted her daughter’s motion as her own. The superior court sustained the motion, finding defendants had not waived their rights to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of their guilt of the crimes charged under Jackson v. Virginia, and that the evidence was insufficient under such standard; it expressly directed that a judgment of acquittal be entered as to both defendants on all counts of the charging indictment. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed and remanded: “[e]ven if the evidence did not conclusively establish which of the women actually shot Jones, there was evidence of a common criminal intent, including the women’s presence, companionship, and conduct before and immediately after the fatal shooting. Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find both Cash and Weathington guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which they were convicted.” View "Georgia v. Cash" on Justia Law