plain legal error in Georgia

2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio

2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio

2012Page v. Braddy, 255 Ga. App. 124, 126 ( 564 SE2d 538 ) (2002) (“The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (punctuation omitted)).

2012Page v. Braddy, 255 Ga. App. 124, 126 ( 564 SE2d 538 ) (2002) (“The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (punctuation omitted)).

2019Again, we disagree. 5 “In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State, 291 Ga. App. 249, 251 ( 661 SE2d 865 ) (2008).

2019Again, we disagree. 5 “In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, we apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) White v. State, 291 Ga. App. 249, 251 ( 661 SE2d 865 ) (2008).

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhorter, 312 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 720 SE2d 270 ) (2011).

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southland Propane, Inc. v. McWhorter, 312 Ga. App. 812, 813 ( 720 SE2d 270 ) (2011).

2022When the issue is a question of law, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Laurel Baye Healthcare of Macon, LLC v. Neubauer, 315 Ga. App. 474, 475 ( 726 SE2d 670 ) (2012).

2022When the issue is a question of law, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Laurel Baye Healthcare of Macon, LLC v. Neubauer, 315 Ga. App. 474, 475 ( 726 SE2d 670 ) (2012).

2021Indeed, when only a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” Kemp v. Kemp, 337 Ga. App. 627, 632 ( 788 SE2d 517 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2021Indeed, when only a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” Kemp v. Kemp, 337 Ga. App. 627, 632 ( 788 SE2d 517 ) (2016) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011).

2021A jury charge must be considered as a whole and the parts read in conjunction with each other.” Daniels v. State, 310 Ga. App. 562, 565 (2) ( 714 SE2d 91 ) (2011).

2014“However, the court’s judgment in a non-jury trial will be reversed where it is apparent that it rests on erroneous reasoning or on an erroneous legal theory.” (Citations omitted.) CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213 Ga. App. 710, 721 (4) ( 445 SE2d 782 ) (1994) (finding that judgment must be reversed where trial court’s factual findings were inconsistent).

2014“However, the court’s judgment in a non-jury trial will be reversed where it is apparent that it rests on erroneous reasoning or on an erroneous legal theory.” (Citations omitted.) CRS Sirrine, Inc. v. Dravo Corp., 213 Ga. App. 710, 721 (4) ( 445 SE2d 782 ) (1994) (finding that judgment must be reversed where trial court’s factual findings were inconsistent).

2014The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Slaick v. Arnold, 316 Ga. App. 141, 142 ( 728 SE2d 782 ) (2012).

2014The plain legal error standard of review applies where the appellate court determines that the issue was of law, not fact.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Slaick v. Arnold, 316 Ga. App. 141, 142 ( 728 SE2d 782 ) (2012).

2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008).

2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008).

2013“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Seeley v. Seeley, 282 Ga. App. 394, 395 (1) ( 638 SE2d 837 ) (2006).

2013“When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Seeley v. Seeley, 282 Ga. App. 394, 395 (1) ( 638 SE2d 837 ) (2006).

2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008).

2013Carter v. Smith, 294 Ga. App. 590, 592-593 (2) ( 669 SE2d 425 ) (2008). “[I]t is well established that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) West v. Breast Care Specialists, LLC, 290 Ga. App. 521, 522 (1) ( 659 SE2d 895 ) (2008).

2012See Deere Park & Assoc. v. C H Furniture Source, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 382 ( 674 SE2d 635 ) (2009).

2012See Deere Park & Assoc. v. C H Furniture Source, LLC, 296 Ga. App. 382 ( 674 SE2d 635 ) (2009).

2012Applying this standard, we must uphold the trial court’s determination that Waldrip intended to transfer all his property to the Trust if there is any evidence to support it, but we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that the Trust’s after-acquired property provisions effectively fulfilled this intention under the applicable law. (a) Intent — “Broadly speaking, the terms of a trust are whatever the settlor [ 2 ] intended them to be at the time of the creation of the trust, so long as those terms are permitted by law.” (Citation omitted.) Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879, 882 (1) (

2012Applying this standard, we must uphold the trial court’s determination that Waldrip intended to transfer all his property to the Trust if there is any evidence to support it, but we review de novo the trial court’s conclusion that the Trust’s after-acquired property provisions effectively fulfilled this intention under the applicable law. (a) Intent — “Broadly speaking, the terms of a trust are whatever the settlor [ 2 ] intended them to be at the time of the creation of the trust, so long as those terms are permitted by law.” (Citation omitted.) Heiman v. Mayfield, 300 Ga. App. 879, 882 (1) (

2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol.

2012“In reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, this Court applies the plain legal error standard of review.”5 The requested charge stated that I further charge you that standing alone, the mere fact of a person’s having refused an officer’s request to take a chemical test is not in and 3 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle v. State, 303 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) ( 694 SE2d 707 ) (2010). 4 Id. 5 (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crusselle, supra at 882 (2). 4 of itself determinative of the issue of whether the person was or was not under the influence alcohol.

2008“The construction, interpretation and legal effect of [a restrictive covenant] is an issue of law to which the appellate court applies the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga. App. 442, 444 (1) ( 626 SE2d 632 ) (2006).

2008“The construction, interpretation and legal effect of [a restrictive covenant] is an issue of law to which the appellate court applies the plain legal error standard of review.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga. App. 442, 444 (1) ( 626 SE2d 632 ) (2006).

2007When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Epps v. Hin, 255 Ga. App. 370, 371 ( 565 SE2d 577 ) (2002); Wright v. State, 284 Ga. App. 169 ( 643 SE2d 538 ) (2007).

2007When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Epps v. Hin, 255 Ga. App. 370, 371 ( 565 SE2d 577 ) (2002); Wright v. State, 284 Ga. App. 169 ( 643 SE2d 538 ) (2007).

2004But where, as here, there is no dispute as to the trial court’s findings of fact and the issue presented is one of law, “the issue for review [is] whether the trial court made a plain legal error.” Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40, 45 (3) ( 510 SE2d 895 ) (1999).

2004But where, as here, there is no dispute as to the trial court’s findings of fact and the issue presented is one of law, “the issue for review [is] whether the trial court made a plain legal error.” Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga. App. 40, 45 (3) ( 510 SE2d 895 ) (1999).

2018And when a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley , 312 Ga. App. 855 , 856, 720 S.E.2d 305 (2011) (footnote omitted).

2018And when a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Georgia Transmission Corp. v. Worley , 312 Ga. App. 855 , 856, 720 S.E.2d 305 (2011) (footnote omitted).

2019However, to the extent this case presents a question of law, the standard of review is "de novo, during which we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Hutcheson v. Elizabeth Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc. , 317 Ga. App. 123 , 125, 730 S.E.2d 514 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 1.

2019However, to the extent this case presents a question of law, the standard of review is "de novo, during which we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." Hutcheson v. Elizabeth Brennan Antiques & Interiors, Inc. , 317 Ga. App. 123 , 125, 730 S.E.2d 514 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 1.

2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio

2013“Since this appeal involves questions of law concerning the nature of damages in [Maestro]’s complaint and the trial court’s entry of default judgment for liquidated damages, this Court must review the record de novo and apply a plain legal error standard of review.”1 “When a question of law is at issue, . . . we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review.”2 1 GMC Group. v. Harsco Corp., 304 Ga. App. 182 ( 695 SE2d 702 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2 Suarez v. Halbert, 246 Ga. App. 822, 824 (1) ( 543 SE2d 733 ) (2000) (citatio

2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard.

2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard.

2025Compare Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 319 Ga. 670, 683 (2) ( 906 SE2d 389 ) (2024) (courts conduct a harmless error review of a trial court’s refusal to give a requested charge); Howland, 324 Ga. App. at 182 (4) (“On appeal, we review allegedly erroneous jury instructions under the plain legal error standard.