Recent
April 18, 2010
Georgia Cases and Comments
October 28, 2010
Proponents of Amendment One mis-cite a case in support of their contention that anti-competition agreements can be invalidated by minor defects, such as a missing comma. Read here.
October 27, 2010
This is a lengthy overview of the judicial record of Justice David Nahmias, who is running to retain his appointed position on the Georgia Supreme Court. I explain why I cannot vote for him on his current record, but hope that he will prove me wrong if he is elected. Read here.
October 27, 2010
The ballot question for Amendment One, which asks Georgians whether they want Georgia to be economically competitive, is deceptive. If approved, this question would limit the rights of Georgians to compete. Read here.
July 27, 2010
What can an appellant do when the clerk's office of the trial court fails to prepare a record of the case in order to allow the appeal to proceed? This case involves mandamus and sanctions under OCGA § 9-15-14. Read here.
April 24, 2010
The Court criticizes the citation of text in a large record by reference to the place in the record where the document begins and the document's internal page citation. Does this not require too much inefficiency? Read here.
April 20, 2010
The official purpose of OCGA § 9-11-9.1 is to require a plaintiff to investigate a professional negligence suit before filing it and to obtain the validation of the suit from a competent professional. Why, then, should it so often defeat non-frivolous lawsuits? Read here.
April 18, 2010
What happens when the statute defines a person as a sexual offender, and requires registration as one, where the person commits only non-sexual false imprisonment of a minor? Read here.
March 19, 2010
This reviews the decision in Smith v. Salon Baptiste, with critical commentary and links to the sources showing that the Supreme Court majority was in error. It also explains the importance of the decision in terms of making justice available to all. Read here.
March 21, 2010
The history of this constitutional provision. The majority represents that it sprang into existence in 1877 solely as a means to give citizens the right to choose to represent themselves without a lawyer in courts. It didn't. It has a much older pedigree, and it existed to preserve citizens' rights to present their lawful claims in court. Read here.
March 23, 2010
This highlights the cases in point that interpreted this precise constitutional provision on the issue of a party's right to present their claims and defenses in good faith without having to bear the opposing party's attorneys fees, which cases were ignored by the majority and concurrence: Traders' Ins. Co. v. Mann, 118 Ga. 381, 386-387 (1903); Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Gardner, 118 Ga. 723, 726 (1903); Fender v. Ramsey & Phillips, 131 Ga. 440, 442 (1908); West v. Haas, 191 Ga. 569, 575 (1941); and David G. Brown, P.E., Inc. v. Kent, 274 Ga. 849, 851 (2002). Fascinatingly, it appears that the very first recipient of the benefit of this provision was none other than Mr. Nelson Tift, whose comments in the 1877 constitutional convention led the majority to believe, incorrectly, that nobody had such constitutional rights. Tift v. Towns, 63 Ga. 237 (1879). Read here.
March 23, 2010
This addresses the grammar of this constitutional provision. If Justice Nahmias is right about its plain meaning, then the rest of the world is wrong, because the rest of the world sees it differently. Read here.
March 23, 2010
This addresses the significance of the 1877 constititional convention. It doesn't mean what the majority and concurrence say it meant. Read here.
March 23, 2010
This covers the significance of the Nelms line of cases on which the majority relied. They decided entirely different issues, and do not contradict the cases protecting parties from punishment for asserting their claims in court in good faith. Read here.
April 18, 2010
I took over the appeal, started and finished a motion for reconsideration on the date it was due. The motion was denied, but Justice Nahmias substantially changed his opinion in response. I review the changes here. Read here.
March 9, 2010
Can a party file a renewed motion for summary judgment, even if nothing has changed? Read here.
March 6, 2010
After a court has granted a final judgment, and a party has filed a timely appeal, can the court modify that judgment? Read here.
Author: Charles M. Cork, III
Author's Email: cmc@corklaw.com
Author's Home Page: http://corklaw.com
Blog Home: GCC.htm; News feed: RSS
Index/Categories: Index
Policy, Replies & Disclaimer: About.htm