Notice of Appeal

Georgia Supreme Court -- Civil Cases from Monday

The Georgia Supreme Court issued four opinions in general civil cases Monday.

The case getting the most attention is the court's most recent decision in a line of cases interpreting the Georgia Legislature's attempts at tort reform.  In Allen v. Wright, the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated the requirement of filing authorizations for disclosure of medical records along with the complaint in med mal cases (OCGA § 9-11-9.2) because it violates HIPAA. The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint because they contended her authorizations did not comply with the statute's requirements, but the trial court found the statute was preempted by the (federal) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Court of Appeals affirmed (relying on its decision in Northlake Medical Center v. Queen, 280 Ga. App. 510 (2006)).

11th Circuit -- Title VII judgment caps, a Ponzi scheme, and more...

The Eleventh Circuit has not been as prolific as the Georgia Supreme Court this week, having issued just 5 published decisions on a variety of topcs in the first part of the week.

The case of Bradshaw v. School Board, in an opinion written by 7th Circuit Judge Cudahy, takes on the overlap between Title VII's limits on recovery and a Florida state statute's somewhat different limit on recovery against a governmental body.  Bradshaw's award was $500,000.  Under Title VII, which limits damages based on the number of employees, the cap on recovery under that statute is $300,000. Under general Florida tort law, waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to a cap of $100,000. So it stands to reason that Bradshaw should get $400,000, right?

Georgia Supreme Court -- Discipline and Family Law Cases

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday issued 20 opinions, including 4 family law cases and 2 attorney discipline decisions.

The topic of the day for divorce cases was attempts by parties to revisit the divorce issues later. In Scott v. Scott, a party successfully sought to set aside a final judgment incorporating an agreement based on a nonamendable defect on the face of the judgment, to wit, the failure to comply with requirements of OCGA § 19-5-12 and an impermissible waiver of the right to child support, but the Supreme Court held that the agreement did not contain any defects rendering the agreement void, and having consented to the agreement and requested it be incorporated into the order, the appellee could not later attack its terms. In Jacob v. Koslow, the Supreme Court held that a party could not move for contempt of a divorce decree in a different county from where the judgment was entered, unless it were in conjunction with a motion for modification. Notably, however, a court in a different county could entertain a motion for modification plus a petition for contempt, deny the modification motion and still find the respondent in contempt.

Georgia Supreme Court today

The Georgia Supreme Court has posted 20 decisions today -- the count is 9 criminal cases; 1 parental rights case; 3 domestic cases; 1 habeas case; 4 other civil cases; and 2 attorney discipline cases. Our summaries are forthcoming, but the opinions are available here, with the court's brief summaries here.

Eleventh Circuit Caps off the Week (Part II)

Friday in the Eleventh Circuit brought a host of opinions, including one on sanctions against a government for repeatedly violating the automatic stay in bankruptcy; two white collar criminal cases involving both sufficiency and sentencing issues; a habeas case on the AEDPA statute of limitations; and an appeal of a drug smuggling conviction.

First, in the Bureaucratic Persistence Department, we have Florida Department of Revenue v. Omine. The dispute centers around the Florida DOR's attempts to collect a Hawaii welfare payment to Omine's ex-wife and children. Omine and his second wife, now living in Florida, declared bankruptcy, and the automatic stay went into effect; the Hawaii debt obligation was part of their Chapter 13 plan. Nevertheless, the Florida DOR continued its collection efforts. Each time, the DOR would agree to stop collection efforts in view of the stay, but a short time later, the DOR would initiate yet another collection effort. After five of such incidents, the Omines filed a motion for sanctions, which the bankruptcy court granted, and the district court's order leaving the sanctions ruling in place (albeit modifying the relief awarded) was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit.

Eleventh Circuit caps off the week (Part I)

After being quiet for a week, the Eleventh Circuit issued a wave of opinions Thursday and Friday. This post covers the two opinions issued by the court on Thursday, one on an issue of choice of (foreign) law for a tortious interference case, and the other involving application of the USDA's regulations regarding federal disaster assistance.

The case of Grupo Televisa v. Telemundo Communications Group arose when a Mexican soap opera actor under exclusive contract to Televisa (a spanish-language TV production conglomerate) accepted a role in a soap opera produced by rival Telemundo, sparking a tortious interference suit by Televisa. Televisa, a Mexican company, maintains an office in Florida, but broadcasts in the U.S. via license to Univision. Telemundo is owned by NBC Universal, and is headquartered in Hialeah, Florida. The district court found, under Florida's "most significant relationship" test, that the contacts with Mexico outweighed those with Florida; and since Mexican law does not have a cause of action for tortious interference, it granted summary judgment to Telemundo.

Georgia Court of Appeals this week

There have not been any Georgia Supreme Court opinions since April 24, and no Eleventh Circuit opinions since the Skop case issued last Thursday. The Georgia Court of Appeals has had a slow trickle of opinions in the last week, though.

Another in a series of recent cases demonstrating the dangers of the construction business (and the difficulty in obtaining damages against anyone for construction-related injuries), in Golden v. Vickery, 2007 WL 1266861, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Vickery and the City of Calhoun, for injuries Golden suffered when his lift came into contact with electrical wires while installing siding on the roof of a building, on the basis of qualified immunity. Golden had notified Vickery that the siding work would be done, requesting the electrical lines be de-electrified for the work. Vickery decided it would be better to install protective coverings, which failed, and resulted in Golden's electrocution, resulting in severe burns.

Having a Bad Day?

Evidently Officer Timothy Brown, one of Atlanta's finest, was having a bad day on July 10, 2003. It was a summer evening after a thunderstorm in an intown Atlanta neighborhood, and Laura Skop arrived home to find a tree down further up the street, and police car parked across the road diagonally to block further access -- with the rear corner of the car sticking out about a foot into her driveway -- while Officer Brown did paperwork.

Ms. Skop just wanted to park in her garage. She put her turn signal on. No response. She honked the horn. No response. She tried rolling down her window and asking the officer to move. He rolled down the window, but did not respond. She got out and went to his window and tapped on it. He rolled down the window, told her this was a dangerous area, and rolled it back up. This happened twice. From the other side of the closed window, she mouthed a request for his name and badge number. This got his attention: he hopped out and started coming towards her. She asked him to move up a foot so she could get in her driveway. And Officer Brown did what any reasonable officer would do in this situation -- he...

Georgia Court of Appeals -- April 30

The last day of April saw just a few more cases from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In the only civil case, Saunders v. Industrial Metals and Surplus, Inc., 2007 WL 1240407, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment to a landowner and a tenant who had been sued for premises liability when the employee of a roofing contractor hired by the tenant (and/or the owner) fell through a skylight, breaking several bones in his back and becoming paralyzed from the waist down. The employee obtained worker's compensation benefits from his employer, and also sought recovery against the defendants, but the trial court granted them summary judgment, ruling that both owner and tenant surrendered possession and control of the property to the roofing contractor, and the tenant had informed the contractor (which in turn informed its employees) of the danger of stepping on the skylights, and that the fault essentially lay with the contractor (and the employee). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed that neither the tenant nor owner was responsible, whether based on theories of breach of contract, premises liability, vicarious liability, ratification of the contractor's negligence, or negligent hiring.

The Court of Appeals also issued two opinions in criminal cases, affirming one case over a claim that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the second trial while the appeal arising from the first trial (ending in mistrial, and denial of the subsequent plea in bar based on double jeopardy) was still on appeal, DeSouza v. State, 2007 WL 1240298 (the mistrial and denial of plea in bar was affirmed on appeal, and the second trial resulted in a guilty verdict); and affirming a second case over a claim that the trial court erred in having a discussion with trial counsel (during jury deliberations) about mandatory sentencing provisions while the defendant was absent from the courtroom, Small v. State, 2007 WL 1240317 (perhaps the defendant was concerned that counsel was so ready to discuss sentencing before the jury came back).

More Eleventh Circuit News

First, the Supreme Court today issued an opinion with the style Scott v. Harris which, interestingly, reverses the Eleventh Circuit (not usually known for being hard on police) in a Fourth Amendment police chase case, Harris v. Coweta County [and Scott], finding that ramming into the fleeing car to cause a wreck is justified because the chase itself is dangerous to the public. (The opinion reviewed by the Supreme Court was issued in place of the original opinion, which was vacated sua sponte by the panel.)

As SCOTUSBlog notes, this is the first time the Supreme Court has provided a link to a video (the police dashboard video, a la 'Cops') related to the opinion. Read other interesting commentary about the issues in this case (including, whether the rule that courts should rule on the underlying constitutional issue first, before determining whether it was clearly established, in qualified immunity cases should be overturned) as SCOTUSBlog here.

In other news, today, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Hanley v. Roy resolving an international child custody dispute under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.