date and print

May 17, 2012

2010 Granted Certioraris

November 2010

November 22, 2010

S10C1592. THE STATE v. FREDRICK B. SLAUGHTER
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0076

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C. J., and Benham, J., who dissents.

This case will be assigned to the March 2011 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:

Has the Court of Appeals improperly expanded the holding of King v. State, 169 Ga. App. 444 (313 SE2d 144) (1984), to include cases involving OCGA § 17-10-7 (c)?

S10C1596. THE STATE v. DAVID OUTEN
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0436

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 an indictment that tracks the language of the reckless driving statute is sufficient to withstand a timely-filed special demurrer?

S10C1652. ELIAS FLORES et al. v. EXPREZIT! STORES 98-GEORGIA, LLC., et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0703

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the Georgia Dram Shop Act does not apply to the sale by convenience stores of closed packaged containers of alcohol not intended for consumption on the premises?

S10C1743. THE STATE v. ARON MATTHEW MUSSMAN
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0607

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:

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in its application of OCGA § 17-5-56 (a)?

2. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the State committed a due process violation by failing to preserve evidence?

S10C1815. HWA JA LEE v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0177

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 correctly held that there was no harm in preventing Lee from arguing a statute of limitations defense for both charges?

November 1, 2010

S10C1343, S10C1345. DWIGHT BROWN et al. v. EDGAR "BO" POUNDS et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0497

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in these cases. All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who is not participating and Nahmias, J., who is disqualified.

These cases will be assigned to the February 2011 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 amendment to Cobb EMC's bylaws, allowing for voting by proxy, violated the settlement agreement previously entred into by the parties?

S10C1354. ROBERT PRICE v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2025

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the February 2011 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 properly find no error in the trial court's failure to charge the jury as to the defense of mistake of fact?

S10C1471. BROWN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC v. CITY OF SAVANNAH et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0311

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C.J., and Benham, J., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Did the Court of Appeals err by finding that Brown Investment Group, LLC lacked standing to sue the City of Savannah for trespass?

October 2010

October 18, 2010

S10G1633. VICENTE R. CANTERA v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0081

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the February 11 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 a jury instruction on aggravated assault must include an instruction on simple assault? Compare Chase v. State, 277 Ga. 636 (2004), Coney v. State, 290 Ga. App. 364 (2008), and Sutton v. State, 245 Ga. 192 (2) (1980).

S10G1687. CITY of MCDONOUGH v. JAMES CAMPBELL
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0598

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 affirming the trial court’s denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the City, and in particular its holding that Campbell’s employment agreement did not violate OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)’s prohibition against binding successor councils including by requiring payment of a year’s severance in order to discharge him.

October 4, 2010

S10C1244. OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION et al. v. JAMES R. FORRISTER et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2015

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the January 2011 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 its application of City of Atlanta v. Kleber, 285 Ga. 413 (2009) when it upheld the denial of summary judgment by the trial court?

September 20, 2010

S10C0617. JESSE J. JOHNSON v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2347

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, Benham, Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals, in regard to the prejudice prong of Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, erred by holding there was no reasonable probability that Johnson would have accepted the State's plea offer based solely on the fact that Johnson made a counteroffer to the State's plea deal?

S10C1220 JUANITA HICKS et al. v. CALVIN T. MCGEE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2274

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:

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in its application of the law of the case doctrine in this matter?

2. Were the clerks of the Superior Court of Fulton County entitled to official immunity for their acts under the fact of this case? See Grammens v. Dollar, __ Ga. __, S09G0510 (July 5, 2010).

S10C1355. EMILY MARIE DAVENPORT v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1619

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P. J., who dissents.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner failed to make a showing sufficient under OCGA § 24-10-90, et seq.

September 7, 2010

S10C1085. LISA YEARY v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1786

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who dissents.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

May a party make a stand-alone request for the production of documents under The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, OCGA § 24-10-90 et seq.?

S10C1141. BENCHMARK BUILDERS, INC. v. STEPHEN H. SCHULTZ et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2373

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 was correct in holding that by failing to object to the verdict form a party waives a claim that an award of attorney fees under OCGA Section 13-6-11 is improper in the absence of an award of actual damages.

S10C1263. TIMOTHY JACKSON HAMMOND v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1701

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C.J., and Hines, J., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the January 11 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 holding of Garza v. State, 284 Ga. 696 (670 SE2d 73) (2008), applies retroactively. See Dixon v. State, 303 Ga. App. 517 (693 SE2d 900) (2010); Abernathy v. State, 299 Ga. App. 897 (685 SE2d 734) (2009).

2. If it does, whether the trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction on asportation was reversible error.

S10G1337. THE STATE v. HULON THACKSTON
Court of Appeals No. A09A2060

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:

1. Does the exclusionary rule apply to probation revocation hearings as a matter of federal or state constitutional or statutory law?

2. If the exclusionary rule does apply, did the Court of Appeals err in holding that collateral estoppel required the exclusion of the seized evidence at issue based on the prior ruling of the Paulding County trial court?

3. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that an appellee is barred from raising an argument on an issue on appeal because that argument was not raised in the trial court?

July 2010

July 14, 2010

S10C1027. TONY JOHNSON et al. v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY
Court of Appeals Case No. A10A0793 (Dismissed by Order)

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 10 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 dismissing Petitioners' direct appeal?

July 12, 2010

S10C0619. PAMELA H. SAPP et al. v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Court of Appeals No. A09A2317

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Thompson and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that an insurance policy is not subject to the Motor Carrier Act if the policyholder fails to file for a permit under the Act and the policy does not contain a Form F endorsement, without regard to whether both parties knew, or should have known, that the policy should have been issued as a motor carrier policy subject to the Act?

2. Did the Court of Appeals err in relying on the absence of a transcript of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to assume that the trial court had an adequate evidentiary basis for its findings?.

3. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the 50-mile radius-of-use limitation in the automobile insurance policy was valid as not in violation of public policy?

S10C1142. MCG HEALTH, INC. v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Court of Appeals No. A09A1817

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 correctly interpret OCGA Section 44-14-470 to require an underlying debt that is the obligation of the patient?

July 9, 2010
S10C0877. RICHARD ROSENBERG v. FALLING WATER, INC.
Court of Appeals No. A09A2393

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C.J., and Benham and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendant was not equitably estopped from relying on the statute of repose to defeat a construction defect claim.

June 2010

June 28, 2010

S10C0670. TERRY LYNN MILLER v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals No. A09A2405

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 case will be assigned to the October 10 oral argument calendarautomatically 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 holding that Miller, an indigent, was not entitled to a State-provided transcript of his probation revocation hearing for use in his motion for new trial and on appeal?

June 1, 2010

S10C0615. FLOYD E. PROPST, ADMR., et al. v. ROBIN MORGAN, ADMR.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1340

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the September 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 by considering the underlying issue of recusal without first considering whether the appeal raising this issue was properly dismissed? See OCGA § 5-6-48 (c).

May 2010

May 17, 2010

S10C0211. THE STATE v. STANLEY PORTER
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1508

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 its application of Harris v. State, 284 Ga. 455 (2008)?

S10C0494. CITY OF EAST POINT v. MIA'KESHA JORDAN et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2175

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 case will be assigned to the September 10 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 affirming the trial court’s finding of valid service of process on the City of East Point? See OCGA § 9-11-4 (e) (5); City of Atlanta v. Black, 265 Ga. 425 (457 SE2d 551) (1995).

S10C0664. BOBBY CARROLL PURVIS v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0839

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 affirming the trial court’s decision that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to recognize that the victim recanted at trial?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that the defendant’s rights to a public and fair trial were not violated by having his trial held in the county jail courtroom? See OCGA § 15-6-18. See also Presley v. Georgia, ___ U.S. ___ (130 SC 721, 175 LE2d 675) (2010).

S10C0806. JOSEPH HEDDEN et al. v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2170

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 held that possession of a photographic image of a victim being restrained precludes deviation from mandatory minimum sentencing under OCGA 17-10-6.2 (c) (1) (F)?

May 3, 2010

S10C0521. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY v. HATHAWAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1119

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C.J., Carley, P.J., and Benham, J., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 its construction of the term “occurrence” as defined by the insurance policy in question?

S10C0542. THE STATE v. PHILLIP PICKETT
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1285

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 affirming the trial court’s finding that appellee’s defense was prejudiced by pretrial delay to a degree sufficient to support his claim of a speedy trial violation?

S10C0644. MICHAEL POINTER et al. v. DEVIN W. ROBERTS
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1448

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C.J., Benham and Thompson, JJ., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the September 10 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 its finding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Roberts’ motion for a continuance?

March 2010

March 29, 2010

S10C0459. COVINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LLC. v. INGLES MARKETS, INC.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2145

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:

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Ingles on the issue of liability for attorney fees under OCGA § 3-6-11? See Tyler v. Lincoln, 272 Ga. 118, 121-122 (2) (527 SE2d 180)(2000); D&H. Constr. Co. v. City of Woodstock, 284 Ga. App. 314, 318-319 (2) (643 SE2d 826) (2007); Stargate Software Intl. v. Rumph, 224 Ga.App. 873, 878 (4)(482SE2d498)(1997).

S10C0460. ANNIE LING v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1271

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who dissents.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

(1) Whether the trial court found as a matter of fact that the defendant spoke and understood English well enough
"to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against [her], to consult with counsel, and to assist in.
preparing [her] defense." Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171 (95 SC 896, 43 LE2d 103) (1975). Accord Biggs.
v. State. 281 Ga. 627, 629 (642 SE2d 74) (2007).

(2) If not,

(a) whether the lack of a translator at trial for a non-English speaking defendant deprives the defendant of her.
constitutional right to be present at the trial; and

(b) whether a non-English-speaking defendant is deprived of the right to the effective assistance of counsel
where counsel fails to secure an interpreter for trial.

March 15, 2010

S09C2078. THE STATE v. JAMES ODELL HOBBS
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1407

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 January 25, 2010 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 trial court’s charge on good character evidence was erroneous?

This case will be assigned to the June 2010, oral argument calendar automatically under Supreme Court Rule 50 (2), as amended September 13, 1996. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C. J., Benham and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

S10C0158. ASHAUNTE MILLER v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1005

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P.J., Hines and Nahmias, JJ., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the June 10 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 trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress?

S10C0448. NUCI PHILLIPS MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, INC. v. ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1480

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P. J., who dissents.

This case will be assigned to the June 10 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 applying OCGA Section 48-5-41 (d) (2)? Compare Ga. Laws 2006 at 376 and Ga. Laws 2007 at 341.

March 1, 2010

S10C0310. TOSHA WILLIAMS v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1105

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 affirming the denial of the plea in bar. See Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323 (1970). See also Edge v. State, 261 Ga. 865 (1992).

S10C0359. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GEORGIA et al. v. BROWN & GALLO, LLC
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1936

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C. J., and Carley, P. J., disqualified.

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 affirming the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss?

February 8, 2010

S10C0084. GARY WAYNE ROBINSON, a/k/a BILLY WAYNE ROBINSON et al. v. ALLEN BOYD, JR.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1681

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

This case will be assigned to the May 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 correctly applied Hobbs v. Arthur, 264 Ga. 359 (1994)?

February 1, 2010

S09C1874. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a LIFE CARE OF GWINNETT v. ANGELA SMITH et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0548

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P. J., and Thompson, J., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the May 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:

Does a durable health care power of attorney authorize the agent to sign an arbitration clause upon admitting the principal to a nursing home?

S09C1912. RAY G. ANTHONY et al. v. GATOR COCHRAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0687

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, C. J., Carley, P. J., and Thompson, J., who dissent.

This case will be assigned to the May 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:

Does a party waive his right to challenge an inconsistent verdict on appeal by failing to object to the verdict form provided to the jury.

S09C1928. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS and COMPANY v. DENNIS A. WATERS et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0339

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 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:

Was the trial court authorized to appoint a special master in this case?

January 2010

January 11, 2009

S09C1710. STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. RANDOLPH P. ADAMS
Court of Appeals Case No. A08A2315

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P. J., who dissents.

This case will be assigned to the April 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 extending the rationale of Thurman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Ga. 162 (2004), to the satisfaction of a hospital lien by the tortfeasor's liability insurer?

S09C1783. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al v. KEYINGHAM INVESTMENTS, LLC., et al.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0407

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 finding the title commitment’s condition was fulfilled? See Glass v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 181 Ga. App. 804 (354 SE2d 187) (1987).

S09C1828. THE STATE v. OMAR KYHAN MILLER
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0086

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:

What is the proper standard for analyzing whether destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence rises to a due process violation and was that standard met in this case?

S09C1876. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SOUTH INSURANCE COMPANY v. DONNA FLOYD
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A0392

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Carley, J., who dissents.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Did the Court Of Appeals err in extending the rationale of Thurman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 Ga. 162 (2004), to the satisfaction of a hospital lien by the tortfeasor's liability insurer.

S09C1946. ULTRA TELECOM, INC., et al. v. STATE of GEORGIA
S09C1948. ALLSTAR, INC., et al. v. STATE of GEORGIA
Court of Appeals Case Nos. A07A1015, A07A1016, A07A1017, A07A1018

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur.

These cases will be assigned to the April 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 machines at issue meet the definition in OCGA § 16-12-35 for machines designed for bona fide amusement purposes.

S09C1974. NEWELL RECYCLING of ATLANTA, INC. v. JORDAN JONES and GOULDING, INC.
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A1397

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 holding that a professional malpractice claim premised on a written contract is governed by the four-year statute of limitations in OCGA § 9-3-25, rather than the six-year statute of limitations in OCGA § 9-3-24?

S10C0043. RUSSEL BAKER v. WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a WELLSTAR KENNESTONE HOSPITAL
Court of Appeals Application No. A09I0296

Upon consideration of the Petition for Certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case, it is ordered that it be hereby granted.

It is further ordered that the application for appeal is hereby granted. Notice of Appeal directed to the Supreme Court should be filed in the trial court within 10 days from the date of this order, timely enumeration of errors and briefs to be filed in this Court after the record is docketed here. The case will be automatically assigned to an oral argument calendar upon docketing. Oral argument is mandatory in granted certiorari cases. All the Justices concur, except Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

Whether the protective order entered in this case comports with Moreland v. Austin, 284 Ga. 730 (2008) and the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act?

S10C0060. FREDERICK O'NEAL v. THE STATE
Court of Appeals Case No. A09A2077

The Supreme Court today granted the writ of certiorari in this case. All the Justices concur, except Benham and Hines, JJ., who dissent.

This Court is particularly concerned with the following issue or issues:

1. Whether, if a defendant objects to a prosecutor placing prejudicial matters before the jury which are not in evidence and the trial court sustains the objection, the trial court is required by OCGA § 17-8-75 to give a curative instruction even absent a request from the defendant? Compare Arrington v. State, Case No. S09P1028 (decided Nov. 9, 2009) (2009 Ga. Lexis 690 at *24-25), and Walker v. State, 281 Ga. 521, 523 (640 SE2d 274) (2009), with Parker v. State, 276 Ga. 598, 599 (581 SE2d 7) (2003), and Kyler v. State, 270 Ga. 81 (508 SE2d 152) (1998).

2. If not, whether when the defendant does request a curative instruction, as did O'Neal, that request is sufficient to preserve the defendant's right to complain of the failure to give a curative instruction even if the trial court fails to rule on the request.

3. Whether the trial court's statement to "just proceed on" constituted a denial of O'Neal's request for a curative instruction.