 2009 Granted Interlocutory Applications
November 30, 2009
S10I0236. JASON JEROME MOON v. THE STATE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the trial court err in granting the motion to reconsider the order changing venue?
November 23, 2009
S10I0216. MICHAEL JASON REGISTE v. THE STATE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, except Melton, J., who dissents.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Whether the trial court erred in disqualifying Stacey Jackson from representing Michael Registe?
October 15, 10092
S10I0017. BRANDON RASHON MULLINS v. THE STATE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, except Carley, P. J., and Melton, J., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
1. Whether the collateral order doctrine authorizes a direct appeal from a trial court’s order denying a motion for immunity from prosecution under OCGA § 16-3-24.2. See, e.g., Britt v. State, 282 Ga. 746, 748 (653 SE2d 713) (2007); Fulton County v. State, 282 Ga. 570, 571 (651 SE2d 679) (2007). And,
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for immunity.
October 2, 2009
S09I2050. STATE of GEORGIA v. ROLAND ROZIER et al.
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the superior court err by denying the State of Georgia’s motion for summary judgment? See OCGA § 50-16-1.
September 3, 2009
S09I1817. Beth Buffington Hood, Exr., et al. v. Regina Gordon Todd
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, Thompson, Hines and Melton, J. J., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the probate court err in finding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a child born out-of-wedlock is included in a will which specifically names only the testator’s two legitimate children as being his “living children,” and defines “children” as meaning only “lawful blood descendants?
July 29, 2009
S09I1788. KHAHN DINH PHAN v. THE STATE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. Hunstein, C. J., Carley, P. J., Benham, Thompson, Hines and Melton, JJ., concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the trial court err in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of funding?
June 23, 2009
S09I1433. RANDALL HAROLD v. SUSAN HAROLD
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P.J., who dissents.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the trial court in setting aside the divorce judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) (2) on the sole basis that appellee’s “prior attorneys simply failed to send discovery responses to opposing counsel despite having been given ample time without her actual or constructive knowledge” See Kairos Peachtree Assoc. v. Papadopoulos, 288 Ga. App. 161, 163 (2007); Moore v. Barfield, 189 Ga. App. 348, 349 (1, 2) (1988); McCullough v. Molyneaux, 163 Ga. 352, 354 (3) (1982).
June 17, 2009
S09I1389. PAULA SUSAN PARRIS, f/k/a DOUTHIT v. JERRY W. DOUTHIT
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
(1) Whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and venue; and (2) whether the trial court was authorized to defer jurisdictional issues until after the temporary disposition of Appellee’s modification action.
June 15, 2009
S09I1364. CAROL GLIEMMO et al. v. MARK D. COUSINEAU et al.
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, except Thompson, Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Whether the trial court erred by denying applicants’ constitutional challenge to OCGA § 51-1-29.5 ( c ) made on the basis that it is an impermissible special law enacted in violation of the uniformity clause of the Georgia Constitution. See Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. IV (a), Ga Const. 1983.
April 30, 2009
S09I1044: THOMAS L. MERRITT v. THE STATE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur, except Carley and Melton, JJ., who dissent.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to declare OCGA § 17-10-6.1 unconstitutional
April 22, 2009
S09I1001. EUGENE SETLOCK v. STEVEN SETLOCK
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Whether the superior court correctly determined that plaintiff's claims with regard to title issues (specifically, Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4) were barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
March 30, 2009
S09I0914: STEPHEN ROBERTS, WARDEN v. BRANDON COOPER
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Did the habeas court err in applying the mailbox rule to Cooper's habeas corpus petition and in denying the motion to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely filed under OCGA § 9-14-42 (c)(1)? See Riley v. State, 280 Ga. 267 (626 SE2d 116) (2006); Taylor v. Williams, 528 F3d 847 (11th Cir. 2008).
March 11, 2009
S09I0759. ANGELA M. LAWRENCE v. G. LAWSON LAWRENCE
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Whether OCGA § 19-3-63 applies to antenuptial agreements. If so, whether the antenuptial agreement in this case satisfies the requirements of OCGA § 19-3-63.
March 9, 2009
S09I0741. SANDRA F. SULLIVAN, f/k/a SGRO v. JAMES E. SULLIVAN
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
1. Whether OCGA § 19-3-63 applies to antenuptial agreements.
2. If so, whether the antenuptial agreement in this case satisfies the requirements of OCGA § 19-3-63.
January 26, 2009
S09I0489. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS v. RONNIE KAPLAN et al.
The Supreme Court today granted the above referenced application for Interlocutory Appeal. All the Justices concur.
This Court is particularly concerned with, and requests that you address in your brief, the following:
Was it error for the trial court's order on the City of Sandy Springs motion for summary judgment to state that the Court finds that Sandy Springs has impliedly accepted liability for maintenance of the pipe at issue. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c)?
|
