 2009 Granted Certioraris
November 2009
November 9, 2009
S09C1700. LAWRENCE RUPERT SMITH v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1059
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P.J., Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the February 2010, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a plea court's failure to follow OCGA § 17-7-93 (c) would not require setting aside a guilty plea because the impact that the plea might have on a defendant's immigration status is merely a collateral consequence of the plea.
S09C2058. PHILLIPS BYRD BROGDON v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1269
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P.J., Thompson and Nahmias, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the February 2010, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
To what extent, if any, does the private papers exemption of OCGA § 17-5-21 apply to a search warrant for medical records under King v. State, 276 Ga. 126 (2003).
November 2, 2009
S09C2004. HOUSTON COUNTY v. CAMILLE S. HARRELL
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0393
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the February 2010, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in exercising jurisdiction over the appeal from a grant of summary judgment apparently based upon certification under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b), even though the machinery of immediate appellate review under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) had previously been put into motion? See Mitchell v. Oliver. 254 Ga. 112, 114 (1) (1985).
S09C2081. BROOKFIELD COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. ST. JAMES BROOKFIELD, LLC.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1408
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the February 2010, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial cour’ts order confirming the arbitrator’s award and denying the application to partially vacate the award.
October 19, 2009
S09C1465. ALPHONZO CANTY v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0449
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police? See Foster v. State, 283 Ga. 484, 485 (2008); Wilson v. State, 285 Ga. 224 (2009).
S09C1508. BONNIE R. HICKS v. JESSICA HEARD et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0874
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Has the Court of Appeals given proper weight to an employee’s “on call” status during the final step of the burden shifting framework laid out in Allen Kane’s Major Dodge, Inc. v. Barnes, 243 Ga. 776 (257 SE2d 186) (1979)? Compare Allen Kane’s, supra at 783 with Upshaw v. Roberts Timber Co., 266 Ga. App. 135 (596 SE2d 679) (2004); Hankerson v. Hammett, 285 Ga. App. 610 (647 SE2d 319) (2007); Evans v. Dixie Fasteners, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 74, 75 (290 SE2d 172) (1982).
S09C1523. THE STATE v. GEORGE A. ANDERSON
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0182
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Anderson’s convictions because the trial court asked whether venue had been proven on the credit card fraud claim,
October 6, 2009
S09C0510. PATRICIA M. GRAMMENS v. JOHN F. DOLLAR et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1243
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur except Carley, P.J., Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
Tis Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues
Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that appellant’s alleged failure to follow written policy was a ministerial act?
October 5, 2009
S09C1257. LAGRANDE THORNTON v. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1801
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur except Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the one-year time-to-sue clause in the insurance policy was not tolled from the time that Appellant submitted a proof of loss until 60 days thereafter when Appellee was obligated either to pay the claim or to deny coverage?
S09C1927. TAVINS LEE ADAMS v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0885
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur except Carley, P. J., and Hines, J., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
What is the appropriate analysis for determining whether a trial court’s re-sentencing of a defendant results in a more severe sentence under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969)? Compare Anthony v. Hopper, 235 Ga. 336 (1975) and Blake v. State, 272 Ga. App. 402 (2005).
S09C1945. OPENSIDED MRI OF ATLANTA, LLC et al. v. OLLIE MAE CHANDLER et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0445
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur except Carley, P.J., and Melton, J., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals correctly reverse the trial court’s grant of Respondents’ motion to dismiss Petitioners’ negligence action for failure to file an expert affidavit under OCGA § 9-11-9.1?
October 2, 2009
S09C1664. SOUTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. CHARLES H. ELLISON et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0701
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P.J., Benham and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.
Did the Court of Appeals err in its determination that the plaintiffs’ claims regarding excessive charges under the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act, OCGA § 46-4-150 et seq., and corresponding overpayments were not barred by the voluntary payment doctrine. See OCGA § 13-1-13.
September 28, 2009
S09C1578. JIM PHILLIP HOLLIE v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0667
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, Carley, P. J., Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the January 2010 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the trial court erred by making Hollie's registration as a sex offender a special condition of his probation.
September 10, 2009
S09C0696 MONYOUETTE GRIFFIN v. STEPHEN BANKSTON et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2332
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed:
The petition for certiorari hereby is granted and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of this Court’s recent decision in Condra et al. v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, P.C., et al., ___ Ga. ___ (Case No. S08G1833, decided June 29, 2009).
September 8, 2009
S09C1177. ROBY E. COWART et al. v. NATHAN LEE WIDENER et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0718
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson, Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the January 2010 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
1. Whether expert testimony is required to establish causation in simple negligence cases where a medical question is involved? Compare Gilbert v. R.J. Taylor Mem. Hosp., 265 Ga. 580, 581 n. 4 (1995) and Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 290 Ga. App. 154 (2008) with Self v. Executive Comm. of the Ga. Baptist Convention, 245 Ga. 548 (1980).
2. If so, what constitutes a "medical question" so as to require such expert testimony?
S09C1219. HNTB GEORGIA, INC. v. LAKEISHA NICOLE HAMILTON-KING, ADMRX., et al.
S09C1224. PLANT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC., d/b/a SEABOARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. LAKEISHA NICOLE HAMILTON-KING, ADMRX., et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2246
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in these cases. All the Justices concur.
These cases will be assigned to the January 2010 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
S09C1254. THE STATE v. SEAN M. BURKE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1855
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except except Benham, Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the January 2010 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the judgment below?
July 2, 2009
S09C1130. THE STATE v. ANDREW DIXON
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2126
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. Hunstein, C. J., Carley, P. J., Benham, Thompson, Hines and Melton, JJ., concur.
This case will be assigned to the October 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court was required to charge on an included offense when there was no evidence the included crime was committed in the county in which the defendant was being tried.
S09C0822. RICHARD DENNIS WHITEHEAD v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1923
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of this Court’s decision in Chase v. State, S09G0139, decided June 15, 2009. Hunstein,C. J., Benham, Thompson, Hines and Melton, JJ., concur, except Carley, P.J., who dissents
June 29, 2009
S09C1045. TRAWICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT of REVENUE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2323
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the October 2009, calendar automatically and oral argument in such cases is mandatory.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
What are the Georgia corporate tax implications of an election under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 338 (h) (10) by the shareholders of a federal sub-chapter S corporation?
S09C1210. THE STATE v. MARQUEZ GARDNER
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2087
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the October 2009, calendar automatically and oral argument in such cases is mandatory.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing convictions based on its finding that the trial judge violated OCGA §17-8-57?
S09C1287. THE STATE v. LEONARD SMITH
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2421
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P. J., and Thompson, J., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the October 2009, calendar automatically and oral argument in such cases is mandatory.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether an individual entitled to the protections of OCGA §§ 17-7-42 and 45-11-4 is entitled to specific notice of when the proposed indictment will be presented to the grand jury.
June 8, 2009
S09C0960. JOAQUIN PAREJA v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1667
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed.
Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration filed in the above-styled case, the same is hereby granted and the order of May 4, 2009 denying the petition for certiorari is vacated. The petition is hereby granted, and the parties are directed to address the following questions on appeal:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the trial court properly admitted, as a similar transaction, evidence of an act of molestation that Pareja committed 26 years before his conviction in this case.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
All the Justices concur except Benham, Thompson, and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
June 8, 2009
S09G1218. MINDY BRODA v. JOAN DZIWURA
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2143
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that a set-off was proper in this case?
June 1, 2009
S09G1127: MEADOW SPRINGS, LLC v. IH RIVERDALE, LLC et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2030
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a right of first refusal to participate in development of property is an interest sufficient for the filing of a lis pendens.
S09G1131: SUMTER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2106
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of OCGA § 46-3-4 (4).
May 18, 2009
S09C0990. LULA HUFF, TAX COMMR. v. HARPAGON COMPANY, LLC
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0269
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
The Court is particularly concerned with Divisions One and Two of the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
S09C1005. ALVISTA HEALTHCARE CENTER, INC., et al. v. MARY MILLER
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1899
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009 oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
(1) Did the C/A err in holding that Georgia law authorizes a surviving spouse to act on behalf of the decedent in pursuing a wrongful death action, such that the surviving spouse would be entitled to access the decedent's protected health information in accordance with 45 C.F.R. § 164.502 (g) of the HIPAA Privacy Rule?
(2) Did the C/A otherwise err in affirming the trial court's award of injunctive and declaratory relief?
May 4, 2009
S09G0980. MARILYN LEE SUMMERLIN et al. v. GEORGIA PINES
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1823
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
1.Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the Georgia Tort Claims Act prohibits courts from looking to the common law definition of what constitutes an “employee” in determining the scope of the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
2.If not, how should courts determine what the word “employee” means in the phrase “an officer or employee of the state” in OCGA § 50-21-22 (7) definition of the term “State officer or employee”.
S09C0997. LEKESHIA STEPP v. STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1600
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Benham, Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the heightened level of culpability required to show violation of OCGA § 16-5-60 (b), as compared to that required to show violation of DeKalb County Ordinance § 5-2 (a), constituted a fact distinguishing the two offenses for double jeopardy purposes? See Drinkard v. Walker, 281 Ga. 211, 216, n.32 (636 SE2d 530) (2006).
(2) If the Court of Appeals did err, did Stepp’s conviction for violation of DeKalb County Ordinance § 5-2 (a) bar her subsequent prosecution for violation of OCGA § 16-5-60 (b)?
S09G1015. THE STATE v. ALI NEJAD
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1685
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the September 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court’s determination that Nejad had been advised of his right to testify.
2. Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the convictions based upon the trial court’s jury instruction regarding a deadly weapon.
April 28, 2009
S09C0870. FRANKLIN LLOYD HARRIS v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2167
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the July 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that a riding lawn mower is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of OCGA § 16-8-12 (a) (5) (A) (theft of a motor vehicle).
S09C0881. DANIELLE TAYLOR v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2406
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the July 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in directing the trial court to re-sentence Taylor for the offense of serious injury by vehicle where the trial jury acquitted the defendant of homicide by vehicle, but also found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter based on the same set of facts involving a single victim.
March 10, 2009
S09C0336. LOUIS LEVENSON, Admr. v. GERALD WORD et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1731
Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration filed in the above-styled case, the same is hereby granted and the order of February 9, 2009 denying the petition for certiorari is vacated. The petition is hereby granted, and the parties are directed to address the following questions on appeal:
Did the Court of Appeals err by affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gerald Word, Maryellen Simmons, and Word & Simmons, P.C.?
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
All Justices concur except Sears, C. J., Benham and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.
March 9, 2009
S09C0468. IN THE INTEREST OF S. N. H., A CHILD
Court of Appeals Case No. S09A0159 (decided by order)
Having considered the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case, the court hereby grants the petition for certiorari and remands this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of this Court’s decision in In Re: K. R. – Ga. – (Case No. S08G1611; decided March 9, 2009). All the Justices concur.
S09C0473. OTHNEIL ALBERT JAMES v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1710
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the June 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the fact that evidence of the alleged rape was vulnerable to destruction justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s home.
S09C0480. Owners Insurance Co. v. Smith Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1563
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the June 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the “care, custody or control” exclusion of the policy does not apply under the facts of this case.
2. If not, whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the insurer’s alternative argument that the customer retained “all-encompassing” and exclusive control of the machine and its insured thus incurred no legal liability when the machine was damaged.
February 24, 2009
S09C0348. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CECIL STATON et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1606
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P. J., and Carley, J., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that Staton was entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage from his employer’s insurance policies that covered vehicles that were not involved in the car accident in which he was injured? See OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (1) (B); Beard v. Nunes, 269 Ga. App. 214 (603 SE2d 735) (2004).
S09C0466. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY of VALDOSTA et al., d/b/a SOUTH GEORGIA MEDICAL CENTER v. THURMAN MEEKS et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1200
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the credentialing information was discoverable to the extent it did not contain a peer review committee’s evaluation of the operating doctor’s performance of medical procedures?
S09C0492. CECIL FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0983
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P. J., and Carley, J., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals properly interpreted the “safe harbor” provision recognized in Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 276 Ga. 683 (2003)?
February 23, 2009
S09C0490. MERDEAN SILMAN et al. v. ASSOCIATES BELLEMEADE et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0863
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P. J., and Carley, J., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err by failing to apply this Court’s recent decision in Baxley v. Hakiel, 282 Ga. 312 (2007) to the facts of this case?
February 10 2009
S08C1958. CENDANT MOBILITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. UDEME ASUAMAH
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0210
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the exception to the general rule of caveat emptor, which was established by Worthey v. Holmes, 249 Ga. 104 (1982), and which provides that a builder-seller may be liable to a buyer for latent construction defects, can be applied to hold a non-builder-seller liable for such defects.
S09C0435. CAROL T. MACKEY et al. v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTAGE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1056
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the May 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
When a defendant in a dispossessory action files a counterclaim seeking affirmative equitable relief and files a motion to transfer the case to superior court, may the state court dismiss the counterclaim? Compare Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VIII; Blackmon v. Tenet Healthsystem Spalding, Inc., 284 Ga. 369 (2008); and Solomon v. Norwest Mortg. Corp., 245 Ga. App. 875 (2000).
January 27, 2009
S08C1967. STACEY McDOWELL v. ANTUAN SMITH, a/n/f KAHMILAH LEDGESTER
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0645
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P.J., and Melton, J., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the April 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that appellant’s alleged failure to follow written policy was a ministerial act?
S09C0139. MELISSA LEE CHASE v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1506
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the April 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that subsection (c) (3) of OCGA § 16-6-5.1 applies to prosecutions under subsection (b) of the statute?
January 12, 2009
S08G1733. JOSEPH E. ALLEN v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0055
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the April 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in construing OCGA § 16-10-52 (b) (1) as speaking of a defendant’s status as a convicted felon at the time of his or her conviction for escape.
S08G1947. DALE L. McCORD et al. v. FLOYD LEE et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A0700
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P.J., Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This case will be assigned to the April 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err by utilizing the “new injury” exception to the general rule for determining commencement of the limitations period in negligent misdiagnosis cases, even though this case does not involve a misdiagnosis? See Cleaveland v. Gannon, 284 Ga. 376 (2008); Amu v. Barnes, 283 Ga. 549 (2008); Baskette v. Atlanta Center for Reproductive Medicine, 285 Ga. App. 876, 878 (1) (2007).
S08G2078. ALAN F. BENEKE v. PATRICIA PARKER et al.
S08G2082. PATRICIA PARKER et al. v. ALAN F. BENEKE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A1504
The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this cas. All the Justices concur.
This case will be assigned to the April 2009, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases.
This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:
Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a “crime” for purposes of OCGA § 9-3-99 must be a “crime” that satisfies the definition set forth in OCGA § 16-2-1 (a).
S08C2131. JOHN ROONEY v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2273
The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment.
The following order was passed:
It appearing that the Court of Appeals dismissed Rooney’s direct appeal from an order denying his motion challenging the validity of his convictions and consecutive sentences when his claims were properly the subject of a motion to vacate void sentence or conviction, the denial of which is directly appealable, OCGA § 17-9-4; Chester v. State, 284 Ga. 162 (664 SE2d 220) (2008); Williams v. State, 271 Ga. 686 (523 SE2d 857) (1999), we hereby grant Rooney’s petition for certiorari and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this order.
|
