DOCSLIB.ORG

Appellate Practice and Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Mercer Law Review Volume 63 Number 1 Annual Survey of Georgia Law Article 4 12-2011 Appellate Practice and Procedure Roland F.L. Hall David R. Cook Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr Part of the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Hall, Roland F.L. and Cook, David R. Jr. (2011) "Appellate Practice and Procedure," Mercer Law Review: Vol. 63 : No. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol63/iss1/4 This Survey Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mercer Law Review by an authorized editor of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Appellate Practice and Procedure by Roland F. L. Hall* and David R. Cook Jr." I. INTRODUCTION This Article surveys decisions addressing appellate law and procedure handed down by the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals between June 1, 2010 and May 31, 2011.1 The cases discussed fall into the following categories: (1) appellate jurisdiction; (2) preserv- ing the record; and (3) miscellaneous cases of interest. II. APPELLATE JURISDICTION A. Selecting the Correct Appeal Procedure In Noaha, LLC v. Vista Antiques & PersianRugs, Inc.,2 the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed the proper means of appealing the domesti- cation of a foreign judgment.' The court of appeals considered whether, pursuant to section 5-6-35(aX8) of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated * Partner in the law firm of Autry, Horton & Cole, Atlanta, Georgia. Mercer University (B.A., magna cum laude, 1991); Mercer University, Walter F. George School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1994). Member, Mercer Law Review (1992-1994); Senior Managing Editor (1993-1994). Member, State Bars of Georgia and Florida. ** Partner in the law firm of Autry, Horton & Cole, Atlanta, Georgia. Mercer University (B.B.A., 2001); Georgia College and State University (M.S. in Accounting, 2002); Mercer University, Walter F. George School of Law (J.D., 2005). Member, State Bar of Georgia. 1. For analysis of Georgia appellate practice and procedure law during the prior survey period, see Roland F. L. Hall, Appellate Practice and Procedure,Annual Survey of Georgia Law, 62 MERCER L. REV. 25 (2010). 2. 306 Ga. App. 323, 702 S.E.2d 660 (2010). 3. Id. at 326, 702 S.E.2d at 662. 67 68 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63 (O.C.G.A.), 4 an appellant pursuing such an appeal must use the discretionary appeal procedure.s The plaintiff in Noaha obtained a judgment against the defendant from the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina, based on the defendant's breach of their settlement agreement. Under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law,' the plaintiff moved the State Court of DeKalb County to domesticate the South Carolina judgment.' The trial court domesticated the judgment, and a writ of fieri facias was issued thereon. In the interim, an appeal from the South Carolina judgment was brought, and the Georgia trial court stayed the execution of the domesticated judgment pending such appeal. When the South Carolina court issued a final revised judgment, the Georgia trial court lifted the stay and amended the prior judgment to conform to the revised South Carolina judgment. From the revised judgment, the defendant filed a direct appeal.' The plaintiff moved for the Georgia Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal on the basis that a direct appeal was improper."o The plaintiff maintained that the proper method to attack a domesticated foreign judgment is by a motion to set aside pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11- 60(d)," and that the defendant's appeal was, in substance, "an appeal of the denial of a motion to set aside." 2 The plaintiff argued that, under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a)(8), the denial of such a motion is appealable only by discretionary appeal. The defendant argued that O.C.G.A. § 5-6- 35(a)(8) did not apply because the defendant had moved to vacate the domestication order and opposed the lift of stay.' The court of appeals concluded that, although the defendant moved to vacate the domestication order, the true substance of the appeal was an attack on the domesticated judgment." Thus, the court of appeals 4. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(aX8) (1995 & Supp. 2011). 5. Noaha, 306 Ga. App. at 325, 702 S.E.2d at 662. 6. Id. at 323-24, 702 S.E.2d at 661. 7. O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-130 to -138 (2006). 8. Noaha, 306 Ga. App. at 323, 702 S.E.2d at 661. 9. Id. at 324-25, 702 S.E.2d at 661-62. 10. Id. at 325, 702 S.E.2d at 662. 11. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(d) (2006). 12. Noaha, 306 Ga. App. at 325, 702 S.E.2d at 662. 13. Id. at 325-26, 702 S.E.2d at 662-63. 14. Id. at 326, 702 S.E.2d at 663 (quoting Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 468-69, 448 S.E.2d 192, 194 (1994)) ("[TIhe underlying subject matter generally controls over the relief sought in determining the proper procedure to follow to appeal."). 20111 APPELLATE PRACTICE & PROCEDURE 69 dismissed the appeal based on its conclusion that the defendant should have filed for a discretionary appeal rather than filing a direct appeal.15 In Avren v. Garten,16 the Georgia Supreme Court considered the scope of supersedeas arising from a notice of appeal and application for discretionary appeal." In this postdivorce litigation between a former wife and husband, the trial court found the former wife "in contempt of previous court orders," denied her other requests for relief, and "ordered [her] to pay the outstanding balance due the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the parties' minor son."" While the trial court considered the former husband's request for attorney fees, the former wife filed a notice of appeal and an application for discretionary review. Five days later, the trial court granted the former husband's request for attorney fees. The trial court then denied the former wife's motion for reconsideration. The supreme court granted her application for discretionary review of such denial.19 The supreme court inquired whether the trial court's denial of the former wife's motion to set aside the award of attorney fees was directly appealable or was subject to a discretionary appeal.2 o The court 2 considered two statutory bases: (1) O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(11), 1 which authorizes a direct appeal from "[aill judgments or orders in child custody cases including, but not limited to, awarding or refusing to change child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders,"22 and (2) O.C.G.A. § 5-6- 35(a)(8), which requires an application for discretionary review to appeal the denial of a motion to set aside.23 Resolving the apparent inconsistency, the supreme court held that the former wife was required to file an application for discretionary review.24 The court relied upon Rebich v. Miles,25 which held that, where the appeal invokes both O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-34(a)26 and 5-6-35(a)," 15. Id. 16. 289 Ga. 186, 710 S.E.2d 130 (2011). 17. Id. at 189, 710 S.E.2d at 136. 18. Id. at 186, 710 S.E.2d at 133. 19. Id. at 189, 710 S.E.2d at 136. 20. Id. at 192, 710 S.E.2d at 137. 21. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(11) (Supp. 2011). 22. Id. 23. Avren, 289 Ga. at 192, 710 S.E.2d at 137; see also O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a)(8). 24. Avren, 289 Ga. at 192, 710 S.E.2d at 137. 25. 264 Ga. 467, 468, 448 S.E.2d 192, 194 (1994). 26. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a) (1995 & Supp. 2011). 27. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a) (1995 & Supp. 2011). 70 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63 an application for appeal is required." Therefore, the inconsistency was resolved in favor of filing an application for appeal.29 In Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, L.P , the court of appeals considered whether an appellant could directly appeal a trial court's review of a special master's findings. In this legal malpractice action arising from a soured investment deal, "[t]he trial court ... appointed a special master to make reports and recommendations on discovery disputes" and, subsequently, "issues of law and fact."32 The trial court adopted the special master's recommendations, which effectively invalidated many of the law firm's affirmative defenses, and the law firm appealed. In addition, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied the law firm's motion for partial summary judgment.3 3 The court of appeals first considered its jurisdiction over the appeal by questioning whether the law firm should have filed an application for discretionary appeal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a)(1), which applies to appeals from trial court judgments in review of auditors' decisions.34 Alternatively, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(h)35 authorizes a direct appeal upon the grant of summary judgment. The court of appeals held that the law firm could bring a direct 3 appeal.
Recommended publications
  • Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    Published United States Court of Appeals for The

    PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2176 ELDERBERRY OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LIVING CENTERS – SOUTHEAST, INCORPORATED, a North Carolina corporation; FMSC WEBER CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CONTINIUMCARE OF WEBER CITY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; MARINER HEALTH CARE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-00052-NKM-RSB) Argued: January 28, 2015 Decided: July 21, 2015 Amended: August 10, 2015 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Wynn joined. ARGUED: James F. Segroves, HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James Strother Crockett, Jr., SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lori D. Thompson, LECLAIRRYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants. Travis A. Knobbe, M. Mallory Mantiply, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-appellee Elderberry of Weber City, LLC (“Elderberry”) filed this civil action in the Western District of Virginia alleging breach of a lease for a skilled nursing facility against defendants-appellants Living Centers – Southeast, Inc. (“Living Centers”), FMSC Weber City Operating Company, LLC (“FMSC”), and ContiniumCare of Weber City (“Continium”), and breach of a guaranty contract against defendant-appellant Mariner Health Care, Inc. (“Mariner”). Separately, in the Northern District of Georgia, Mariner filed a declaratory judgment action against Elderberry, seeking a declaration that it had no obligations under the guaranty.
  • Managing Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?

    Managing Caseflow in State Intermediate Appellate Courts: What Mechanisms, Practices, and Procedures Can Work to Reduce Delay?

    MANAGING CASEFLOW IN STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS: WHAT MECHANISMS, PRACTICES, AND PROCEDURES CAN WORK TO REDUCE DELAY? RICHARD B. HOFFMAN* BARRY MAHONEY** * B.S., 1967, Cornell University; J.D., 1970, Harvard Law School. Member, District of Columbia Bar; Director, Washington Office, The Justice Management Institute, 1997-2001; Senior Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1992-1997; Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals, 1987- 1992. ** President Emeritus, The Justice Management Institute, Denver, Colorado. A.B., 1959, Dartmouth College; LL.B., 1962, Harvard Law School; Ph.D., 1976, Columbia University. This Article presents findings from a study by the Justice Management Institute (JMI) of case processing in state intermediate appellate courts. The Article is based on research conducted by the authors pursuant to a grant from the State Justice Institute to JMI (Grant No. SJI-98-N-032), and is adapted from a project report of the same title that was prepared as a JMI work product in October 2001. Points of view expressed in the Article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. Appreciation is owed and warmly rendered to many who have been instrumental in conducting this study, providing information and insight to the authors and making constructive suggestions on earlier drafts of the manuscript. First, we owe thanks to those in the courts we studied who allowed us access to their data and their knowledge and helped us resolve multiple issues of coordination, interpretation, and analysis arising from the work. These key people included: Maryland: Chief Judge Joseph F.
  • STATE COURT� ADMINISTRATORS� 1997� Annual Meeting

    STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting

    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS 1997 Annual Meeting Cleveland, Ohio Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Abrahamson, Shirley S. Wisconsin Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Amestoy, Jeffrey L. Vermont Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Becker, Daniel Utah Andreu-Garda, Jose A. Puerto Rico Benedict, Jerry L. Texas Arnold, W. H. (Dub) Arkansas Berson, Steven V. Colorado Bell, Robert M. Maryland Broderick, Michael F. Hawaii Benham, Robert Georgia Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benton, Duane Missouri Byers, David K. Arizona Brock, David A. New Hampshire Cameron, Dallas A., Jr. North Carolina Callahan, Robert J. Connecticut Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Ciancia, James J. New Jersey Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Cole, Stephanie J. Alaska Chapel, Charles S. Oklahoma Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Durham, Barbara Washington Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota F1aherj:y, John P. Pennsylvania Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Franchini, Gene E. New Mexico Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Freeman, Charles E. Illinois Ferry, John D., Jr. Michigan George, Ronald M. California Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Glessner, James T. Maine Hooper, Perry 0., Sr. Alabama Goodnow, Donald D. New Hampshire Kauger, Yvonne Oklahoma Greacen, John M. New Mexico Kaye, Judith S. New York Gregory, Frank W. Alabama Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Kogan, Gerald Florida Guerrero, Edward C. D. Northern Mariana Islands Kruse, E Michael American Samoa Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Lee, Dan M.
  • A New Perspective on the Timeliness of State Supreme Courts

    A New Perspective on the Timeliness of State Supreme Courts

    JURISDICTION, CASELOAD, AND TIMELINESS OF STATE SUPREME COURTS A Report Prepared by Dr. Roger A. Hanson Consultant June 2001 This document was developed by the National Center for State Courts under a grant from the State Justice Institute (No. SJI-98-N-038). The points of view expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or the State Justice Institute. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is on the timeliness of state supreme courts. According to the Appellate Court Performance Standards, expedition is one of the three primary goals state appellate courts should strive to achieve. The other values are fairness and consistency. What is the actual time taken to resolve cases? How do state supreme courts stand in relation to the numerical time frames proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA)? What are the problems of and prospects for comparing state supreme courts with one another? These are the organizing questions addressed in this report. Five courts are the objects of study. They include the Supreme Courts of Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio and Virginia. All of these courts are seven member bodies. What emerges from an inquiry of cases resolved by these courts in 1996 and 1997 is an interesting tale. There are three key propositions based on analysis of the jurisdiction, caseload mixture, and timeliness of the five courts. They include the following: First, contrary to both popular and established scholarly views of state supreme courts in two-tiered appellate systems, state supreme courts have substantial numbers of several kinds of cases to resolve.
  • Chief Justices State Court Administrators

    Chief Justices State Court Administrators

    Conference of CHIEF JUSTICES Conference of STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS *:* *:* 1995 *:* 1995 Annual Meeting Monterey, California Conference of Conference of Chief Justices State Court Administrators Allen, Frederic W. Vermont Baldwin, Robert N. Virginia Anderson, E. Riley Tennessee Bauermeister, Mercedes M. Puerto Rico Andr&Garcia, Jose A. Puerto Rico Berson, Steven V. Colorado Baca, Joseph F. New Mexico Buenger, Michael L. South Dakota Benham, Robert Georgia Byers, David K. Arizona Bilandic, Michael A. Illinois Cetrulo, Don Kentucky Brickley, James H. Michigan Chenovick, Patrick A. Montana Brock, David A. New Hampshire Click, Kingsley W. Oregon Calogero, Pascal E, Jr. Louisiana Collins, Hugh M. Louisiana Carrico, Harry L. Virginia Conyers, Howard W. Oklahoma Carson, Wallace P., Jr. Oregon Dosal, Sue K. Minnesota Durham, Barbara Washington Doss, Robert L., Jr. Georgia Feldman, Stanley G. Arizona Drennan, James C. North Carolina Finney, Ernest A., Jr. South Carolina Duncan, Robert L. Wyoming Golden, Michael Wyoming Ferrell, Charles E. Tennessee Grimes, Stephen H. Florida Gilmore, Oliver Alabama Hawkins, Armis E. Mississippi Gingerich, James D. Arkansas Heffernan, Nathan S. Wisconsin Glessner, James T. Maine Hodge, Verne A. Virgin Islands Greenwood, Pamela T. Utah Holmes, Richard W. Kansas Groundland, Lowell L. Delaware Holstein, John C. Missouri Hall, Marilyn K. Michigan Holt, Jack, Jr. Arkansas Hammond, Ulysses B. District of Columbia Hornsby, Sonny Alabama Harrall, Robert C. Rhode Island Johnson, Charles A. 0k 1ah o m a Irwin, John J., Jr. Massachusetts Kaye, Judith S. New York Judice, C. Raymond Texas Keith, A. M. (Sandy) Minnesota Kanter, Deborah New Mexico Kruse, F. Michael American Samoa Kotzan, Bruce A. Indiana Lamorena, Albert0 C., 111 Guam Larkin, Ronald L.
  • E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: an Updated Appraisal (September 2014)

    E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: an Updated Appraisal (September 2014)

    E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Updated Appraisal (September 2014) Originally by David Schanker, Clerk (retired), Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Updated and revised by Timothy A. Gudas, Deputy Clerk, New Hampshire Supreme Court1 Introduction In 2010, David Schanker, with the editorial assistance and contributions of NCACC members Polly Brock, Stuart Cohen, Carol Green, Trish Harrington, Blake Hawthorne, Judy Pacheco, Rex Renk, Rachelle Resnick, and Holly Sparrow, authored a White Paper entitled “E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal.” The 2010 White Paper reported that electronic filing (e-filing) had been implemented in “every federal district court in the nation and in several federal courts of appeal, while in state appellate courts, electronic filing continued to be discussed far more than it had been realized.” According to the 2010 White Paper, the states’ progress toward appellate (as well as trial court) e-filing had been “agonizingly slow,” with only fifteen states having implemented appellate e-filing systems of any kind.2 The stated purpose of the 2010 White Paper was to “provide a 1 This 2014 Updated Appraisal was written with the assistance and contributions of numerous NCACC members, including Tom Hall, Mike Richie, Bessie Decker, Jenny Kitchings, Blake Hawthorne, Joe Stanton, and countless others who reviewed sections summarizing the status of e-filing in their states. In addition, this 2014 Updated Appraisal is directly indebted to the work of those who contributed to the 2010 White Paper, substantial portions of which are repeated here with minimal or no change. 2 The 2010 White Paper defined an appellate e-filing system as either (1) an Internet portal used for the transmission of electronically-filed documents from filers to the courts or (2) a scheme for the voluntary or required transmission of electronic documents to the court by e-mail.
  • Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020

    Judicial Clerkship Handbook 2019-2020

    JUDICIAL CLERKSHIP HANDBOOK 2019-2020 The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office C. Blake McDowell Law Center 150 University Avenue Akron, OH 44325 Phone: 330-972-5321 https://www.uakron.edu/law/career-services/ Alisa Benedict O’Brien, Assistant Dean Alecia Bencze, Assistant Director 1 | Page The University of Akron School of Law Career Services Office ___________________________________________________________________ Judicial Clerkships A judicial clerkship is one of the strongest foundations upon which any law career can be built. Judicial clerkships are post-graduate positions, usually lasting one or two years, in which you work as the right-hand analytical and research person for a judge. The positions usually start in August or September of each year. Deadlines for applications to federal judges are rolling and determined by individual judges. Student applicants should apply beginning in February of 2L year (2D, 3E). Some federal judges will accept applications from students during the fall or spring of their 3L year. For Class of 2020 grads, applications will be released beginning June 17, 2019. For Class of 2021 grads, applications will be released beginning June 15, 2020. Applications for judicial clerkships with state court judges are due for some states during the 2nd year of law school, and for most states, during the fall of the 3rd year of law school. More positions are available with state court judges in your final semester as well. Judicial law clerk (“judicial clerk”) experience is universally recognized by the legal community to be extremely useful in law practice, so it is one of the most valuable experiences you could ever want on your resume.
  • Judicial Council of Georgia

    Judicial Council of Georgia

    JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GEORGIA Friday, February 14, 2020 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. James H. “Sloppy” Floyd Building – Floyd Room 2 Martin Luther King, Jr., Drive West Tower, 20th Floor Atlanta, GA 30334 Judicial Council of Georgia General Session James H. “Sloppy” Floyd Building – Floyd Room 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive West Tower, 20th Floor Atlanta, GA 30334 Friday, February 14, 2020 10 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served immediately following the Council meeting 1. Preliminary Remarks and Introductions (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 5 Min.). 2. Approval of Minutes, December 6, 2019 (Action Item) TAB 1 (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 2 Min.) 3. Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission (Ethics Commission) (Mr. David Emadi – Est. Time – 10 Min.) 4. Institute of Continuing Judicial Education (Action Item) TAB 2 (Mr. Doug Ashworth, Est. Time – 10 Min.) 5. Judicial Council Committee Reports A. Legislation Committee (Action Item) TAB 3 (Presiding Justice David E. Nahmias, Est. Time – 10 Min.) B. Budget Committee TAB 4 (Ms. Maleia Wilson, Est. Time – 10 Min.) C. Technology Committee TAB 5 D. Cybersecurity Insurance for Judiciary Committee TAB 6 (Judge Christian Coomer and Ms. Tynesha Manuel, Est. Time – 5 Min.) 6. Report from Judicial Council/AOC TAB 7 (Ms. Cynthia H. Clanton, Est. Time – 10 Min.) 7. Reports from Courts, Councils & State Bar TAB 8 (Est. Time – 20 min.) A. Supreme Court B. Court of Appeals C. Business Court D. Council of Superior Court Judges E. Council of State Court Judges F. Council of Juvenile Court Judges G.

  • Judicial Council of Georgia

    JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GEORGIA Friday, December 6, 2019 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. The Carter Center Cyprus Room 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 Judicial Council of Georgia General Session The Carter Center 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 Friday, December 6, 2019 10 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served immediately following the Council meeting 1. Preliminary Remarks and Introductions (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 5 Min.). 2. Approval of Minutes, August 23, 2019 (Action Item) TAB 1 (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 2 Min.) 3. Special Presentation (David Allen, CISO, Georgia Technology Authority, Est. Time – 7 Min.) 4. Judicial Council Committee Reports A. Technology Committee (Action Item) TAB 2 (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time 5 Min.) B. Cybersecurity Insurance for the Judiciary Committee TAB 3 (Judge Christian Coomer, Est. Time – 5 Min.) C. Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee (Action Item) TAB 4 (Justice Sarah Warren, Est. Time – 30 Min.) D. Judicial Workload Assessment Committee (Action Item) TAB 5 (Judge David Emerson, Est. Time – 10 Min.) E. Legislation Committee (Action Item) TAB 6 (Presiding Justice David E. Nahmias, Est. Time – 5 Min.) F. Strategic Plan Committee (Action Item) TAB 7 (Judge Sara Doyle, Est. Time – 10 Min.) G. Court Reporting Matters Committee TAB 8 (Vice-Chief Judge Carla McMillian, Est. Time – 5 Min.) 5. Report from Judicial Council/AOC TAB 9 (Ms. Cynthia H. Clanton, Est. Time – 10 Min.) 6. Reports from Appellate Courts, Trial Court Councils & State Bar TAB 10 (Est. Time – 15 min.) A. Supreme Court B.
  • Judicial Council of Georgia

    Judicial Council of Georgia

    JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GEORGIA Friday, August 23, 2019 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Anderson Conference Center 5171 Eisenhower Parkway Macon, GA 31206 Judicial Council of Georgia General Session Anderson Conference Center 5171 Eisenhower Parkway Macon, GA 31206 Friday, August 23, 2019 10 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served immediately following the Council meeting 1. Preliminary Remarks and Introductions (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 5 Min.) 2. Approval of Minutes, April 26, 2019 (Action Item) TAB 1 (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 2 Min.) 3. Judicial Council Committee Reports A. Judicial Workload Assessment Committee (Action Items) TAB 2 (Judge David Emerson, Est. Time – 40 Min.) B. Budget Committee (Action Items) TAB 3 (Justice Michael P. Boggs and Maleia Wilson, Est. Time – 5 Min.) C. Legislation Committee (Action Items) TAB 4 (Presiding Justice David E. Nahmias, Est. Time – 10 Min.) D. Technology Committee TAB 5 (Chief Justice Harold D. Melton, Est. Time – 5 Min.) E. Strategic Plan Committee TAB 6 F. Grants Committee TAB 7 4. Report from Judicial Council/AOC TAB 8 (Ms. Cynthia H. Clanton, Est. Time – 10 Min.) 5. Reports from Appellate Courts, Trial Court Councils & State Bar TAB 9 (Est. Time – 15 Min.) A. Supreme Court B. Court of Appeals C. Council of Superior Court Judges D. Council of State Court Judges E. Council of Juvenile Court Judges F. Council of Probate Court Judges G. Council of Magistrate Court Judges H. Council of Municipal Court Judges I. State Bar of Georgia 6. Reports from additional Judicial Branch Agencies (Est.
  • Content Libraries in Fastcase 7

    Content Libraries in Fastcase 7

    Content Libraries in Fastcase 7 Last Updated: 02.15.21 Constitutions U.S. Constitution State Constitutions for all 50 States District of Columbia Home Rule Act Caselaw U.S. Supreme Court Arizona Court of Appeals All Federal Circuit Courts Arizona Tax Court All Federal District Courts Arkansas Supreme Court All Federal Bankruptcy Courts Arkansas Court of Appeals Alabama Supreme Court California Supreme Court Alabama Court of Civil Appeals California Court of Appeals Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals California Superior Court Alaska Supreme Court Colorado Supreme Court Alaska Court of Appeals Colorado Court of Appeals Arizona Supreme Court Connecticut Supreme Court Page 1 Connecticut Appellate Court Maryland Court of Special Appeals Delaware Supreme Court Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Delaware Chancery Court Massachusetts Appeals Court Delaware Superior Court Michigan Supreme Court Delaware Family Court Michigan Court of Appeals District of Columbia Court of Appeals Minnesota Supreme Court Florida Supreme Court Minnesota Court of Appeals Florida District Court of Appeal Mississippi Supreme Court Georgia Supreme Court Mississippi Court of Appeals Georgia Court of Appeals Missouri Supreme Court Hawaii Supreme Court Missouri Court of Appeals Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Montana Supreme Court Idaho Supreme Court Nebraska Supreme Court Idaho Court of Appeals Nebraska Court of Appeals Illinois Supreme Court Nevada Supreme Court Illinois Appellate Court Nevada Court of Appeals Indiana Supreme Court New Hampshire Supreme Court Indiana
  • GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE September 13, 2019 10310 ICLE: State Bar Series

    GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE September 13, 2019 10310 ICLE: State Bar Series

    GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE September 13, 2019 10310 ICLE: State Bar Series Friday, September 13, 2019 GEORGIA APPELLATE PRACTICE 6 CLE Hours Including 2 Professionalism HourS | 6 Trial Practice Hours Copyright © 2019 by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of the State Bar of Georgia. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of ICLE. The Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s publications are intended to provide current and accurate information on designated subject matter. They are off ered as an aid to practicing attorneys to help them maintain professional competence with the understanding that the publisher is not rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice. Attorneys should not rely solely on ICLE publications. Attorneys should research original and current sources of authority and take any other measures that are necessary and appropriate to ensure that they are in compliance with the pertinent rules of professional conduct for their jurisdiction. ICLE gratefully acknowledges the eff orts of the faculty in the preparation of this publication and the presentation of information on their designated subjects at the seminar. The opinions expressed by the faculty in their papers and presentations are their own and do not necessarily refl ect the opinions of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education, its offi cers, or employees. The faculty is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.