Lee motion in Georgia

2018Coon , supra at 734 (4), 797 S.E.2d 828 (citing Lee , supra at 588 (III), 533 S.E.2d 82 ). 14 It is clear that the minor plaintiffs' claims are not included within the narrow Lee exception, and we are not authorized to expand the exception in this case.

2018Coon , supra at 734 (4), 797 S.E.2d 828 (citing Lee , supra at 588 (III), 533 S.E.2d 82 ). 14 It is clear that the minor plaintiffs' claims are not included within the narrow Lee exception, and we are not authorized to expand the exception in this case.

2013See also Snook v. Sessoms, 256 Ga. 482, 482 ( 350 SE2d 237 ) (1986) (holding that as a matter of law, a beneficiary may file an action seeking to require a trustee to comply with his fiduciary duties, without violating the in terrorem clause contained in the trust documents); OCGA § 53-12-221 (a) (2) (“Atrustee may be removed... [u]pon petition to the court by any interested person showing good cause.”). (b) Nor do we find that Bryant and Lee’s motion for injunctive relief, filed as part of the Evans County action, constitutes a “legal or equitable challenge” to a management decision of Callaw

2013See also Snook v. Sessoms, 256 Ga. 482, 482 ( 350 SE2d 237 ) (1986) (holding that as a matter of law, a beneficiary may file an action seeking to require a trustee to comply with his fiduciary duties, without violating the in terrorem clause contained in the trust documents); OCGA § 53-12-221 (a) (2) (“Atrustee may be removed... [u]pon petition to the court by any interested person showing good cause.”). (b) Nor do we find that Bryant and Lee’s motion for injunctive relief, filed as part of the Evans County action, constitutes a “legal or equitable challenge” to a management decision of Callaw

2024This cross- examination and counsel’s use of it as part of Lee’s defense was not “so unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made them under similar circumstances,” Bonner v. State, 314 Ga. 472, 476 (2) (877 SE2d 588) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted), so Lee has failed to show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and his in- effectiveness claim on this ground fails. (d) Lee argues broadly that his trial counsel provided ineffec- tive assistance by failing to “effectively” cross-examine the State’s witnesses about (i) the lack of physical evidence tying Lee to the crime

2024This cross- examination and counsel’s use of it as part of Lee’s defense was not “so unreasonable that no competent attorney would have made them under similar circumstances,” Bonner v. State, 314 Ga. 472, 476 (2) (877 SE2d 588) (2022) (citation and punctuation omitted), so Lee has failed to show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and his in- effectiveness claim on this ground fails. (d) Lee argues broadly that his trial counsel provided ineffec- tive assistance by failing to “effectively” cross-examine the State’s witnesses about (i) the lack of physical evidence tying Lee to the crime

2022Given the court’s specific and detailed findings, Lee’s claim that the trial court merely paid lip service to the four factors set forth by the Supreme Court is not compelling.28 28 Compare Lamb v. Javed, 303 Ga. App. 278, 280-281 (1) ( 692 SE2d 861 ) (2010) (rejecting an argument that the trial court erred by failing to apply forum non conveniens factors on remand when the court made written findings considering and weighing each of the relevant factors), with Cortes v. Ga. Power Co., 361 Ga. App. 103 , 105 ( 863 SE2d 376 ) (2021) (vacating the trial court’s dismissal order when the court dis

2022Given the court’s specific and detailed findings, Lee’s claim that the trial court merely paid lip service to the four factors set forth by the Supreme Court is not compelling.28 28 Compare Lamb v. Javed, 303 Ga. App. 278, 280-281 (1) ( 692 SE2d 861 ) (2010) (rejecting an argument that the trial court erred by failing to apply forum non conveniens factors on remand when the court made written findings considering and weighing each of the relevant factors), with Cortes v. Ga. Power Co., 361 Ga. App. 103 , 105 ( 863 SE2d 376 ) (2021) (vacating the trial court’s dismissal order when the court dis

2019In its sole enumeration, the State argues that the trial court erred in granting Lee’s motion to suppress when it misapplied this Court’s holding in Preston v. State, 296 Ga. App. 655, 658 ( 675 SE2d 553 ) (2009).

2019In its sole enumeration, the State argues that the trial court erred in granting Lee’s motion to suppress when it misapplied this Court’s holding in Preston v. State, 296 Ga. App. 655, 658 ( 675 SE2d 553 ) (2009).

2018Coon , supra at 734 (4), 797 S.E.2d 828 (citing Lee , supra at 588 (III), 533 S.E.2d 82 ). 14 It is clear that the minor plaintiffs' claims are not included within the narrow Lee exception, and we are not authorized to expand the exception in this case.

2018Coon , supra at 734 (4), 797 S.E.2d 828 (citing Lee , supra at 588 (III), 533 S.E.2d 82 ). 14 It is clear that the minor plaintiffs' claims are not included within the narrow Lee exception, and we are not authorized to expand the exception in this case.

2017Under Georgia law, even without disclaiming liability and giving notice of its reservation of rights, “any insurer who merely proceeds to investigate a claim with knowledge of facts which might otherwise constitute a defense to coverage is not estopped from thereafter setting up the defense.”25 Indeed, OCGA § 33-24-40 provides that investigating any loss or claim under any policy shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any provision of a policy or of any defense of the insurer under the policy.26 Thus, under the statute, Mercury’s investigation of Lee’s claim, in and 25 R&G Inv. & Holdin

2017And more importantly, even if we were to assume that Mercury’s investigation was a dilatory tactic, Lee has failed to even allege how he was injured, given that he, in 27 See R&G Inv. & Holdings, LLC, 337 Ga. App. at 598-99 (4) (b) (holding that property insurer’s investigation of vandalism claim without proper reservation of rights did not result in waiver or estoppel precluding insurer from raising any potential defenses to claim, including any defenses based on insured’s failure to cooperate); Brazil v. Gov’t Emp.

2014See Lee, 272 Ga. at 588 ; Shores, supra, 262 Ga. App. at 296 (2); McCunney, supra, 259 Ga. App. at 261-263 (2).

2014See Lee, 272 Ga. at 588 ; Shores, supra, 262 Ga. App. at 296 (2); McCunney, supra, 259 Ga. App. at 261-263 (2).

2014See Lee, 272 Ga. at 588 ; Shores, supra, 262 Ga. App. at 296 (2); McCunney, supra, 259 Ga. App. at 261-263 (2).

2014See Lee, 272 Ga. at 588 ; Shores, supra, 262 Ga. App. at 296 (2); McCunney, supra, 259 Ga. App. at 261-263 (2).

2010For all these reasons, the trial court erred when it denied Lee’s motion for new trial. “[I]f a criminal conviction is reversed because of an evidentiary insufficiency concerning the procedural propriety of laying venue within a particular forum, and not because of an evidentiary insufficiency concerning the accused’s guilt, retrial is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) McKinney v. State, 294 Ga. App. 366, 370 (4) ( 670 SE2d 147 ) (2008).

2009See Lee v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 804. “[W]e perceive no reason to re-examine the issue [of the proportionality of Lee’s death sentence].” Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865, 871 (8) ( 632 SE2d 369 ) (2006) (declining to re-examine proportionality on habeas corpus).

2009See Lee v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 804. “[W]e perceive no reason to re-examine the issue [of the proportionality of Lee’s death sentence].” Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865, 871 (8) ( 632 SE2d 369 ) (2006) (declining to re-examine proportionality on habeas corpus).

2009See Lee v. State, supra, 270 Ga. at 804. “[W]e perceive no reason to re-examine the issue [of the proportionality of Lee’s death sentence].” Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865, 871 (8) ( 632 SE2d 369 ) (2006) (declining to re-examine proportionality on habeas corpus).

2008See Young v. State, 282 Ga. 735 ( 653 SE2d 725 ) (2007).

2008See Young v. State, 282 Ga. 735 ( 653 SE2d 725 ) (2007).

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2002The attorney who represented Lee at trial testified at the hearing on Lee’s motion for a new trial that Lee was not represented at his arraignment, and the State does not dispute this assertion. 3 Spear v. State, 270 Ga. 628, 632 (5) ( 513 SE2d 489 ) (1999). 4 Ledford v. State, 247 Ga. App. 885, 887 ( 545 SE2d 396 ) (2001). 5 Bache v. State, 208 Ga. App. 591 ( 431 SE2d 412 ) (1993). 6 Babb v. State, 252 Ga. App. 518, 520-521 (6) ( 556 SE2d 562 ) (2001). 7 Foote v. State, 136 Ga. App. 301 (1) ( 220 SE2d 786 ) (1975). 8 Patterson v. State, 202 Ga. App. 440 (1) ( 414 SE2d 895 ) (1992). 9 Marion v

2000Based on OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 261 Ga. 664 , 410 S.E.2d 121 (1991) (" Littleton IV "), and its statement of Georgia's impact rule, a majority of the Court of Appeals found that Lee's claim was not actionable and affirmed.

2000Based on OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 261 Ga. 664 , 410 S.E.2d 121 (1991) (" Littleton IV "), and its statement of Georgia's impact rule, a majority of the Court of Appeals found that Lee's claim was not actionable and affirmed.

1999In addition, Lee can show no harm resulting from the denial of this motion. “[S]ince the jury returned a verdict specifying that it found the defendant guilty of ‘malice murder,’ any issue of felony murder is moot.” Holiday v. State, 258 Ga. 393, 398 (12) ( 369 SE2d 241 ) (1988). 5.

1999In addition, Lee can show no harm resulting from the denial of this motion. “[S]ince the jury returned a verdict specifying that it found the defendant guilty of ‘malice murder,’ any issue of felony murder is moot.” Holiday v. State, 258 Ga. 393, 398 (12) ( 369 SE2d 241 ) (1988). 5.

1998See Peavy, supra. 2.