KENNESTONE HOSPITAL, INC. v. EMORY UNIVERSITY

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06

Snippet: 31-6-41 (a); see Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 111-2-2-.02 (3). And if the CON-authorized facility is acquired

In THE MATTER OF DERRIC CROWTHER (Two Cases)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17

Snippet: obligation is generally to be preferred.” OCGA § 13- 2-2 (3), (5). The Special Master noted that attorneys

Budhani v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-28

Citation: 830 S.E.2d 195, 306 Ga. 315

Snippet: ... **319(N) [1-(5-fluoropentyl)indole-3yl]-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl) methanone (XLR11). OCGA

Cottrell v. Atlanta Development Authority, D/B/A Invest Atlanta

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-03-16

Snippet: (D) (“Except as provided in paragraphs (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.7), (4)

COTTRELL Et Al. v. ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Et Al.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-03-16

Citation: 297 Ga. 1, 770 S.E.2d 616, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 179

Snippet: (D) (“Except as provided in paragraphs (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.7), (4)

Johnson v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-09-23

Citation: 293 Ga. 641, 748 S.E.2d 896, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2954, 2013 WL 5303230, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 716

Snippet: *644SE2d 47) (2000) (decided under former OCGA § 24-2-2).3 There were sufficient similarities between the

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. City of Atlanta

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-03-23

Citation: 674 S.E.2d 905, 285 Ga. 189, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 1004, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 91

Snippet: and recording provisions of OCGA §§ 44-2-1 and 44-2-2.[3] See Atlanta Title & Trust Co. v. Inman, 42 Ga

Tompkins v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-01-10

Citation: 607 S.E.2d 891, 278 Ga. 857, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 147, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 35

Snippet: Const. (1983) Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VI; OCGA § 17-2-2. [3] Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900, 901-902, 537 S.E

Broussard v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-02-10

Citation: 576 S.E.2d 883, 276 Ga. 216, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 118

Snippet: such an instruction. State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2(2, 3), 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976). Moreover, as previously

Cook v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-05-07

Citation: 546 S.E.2d 487, 273 Ga. 828

Snippet: verdict or in charging on the provisions of OCGA § 17-2-2. 3. Cook enumerates as error the ineffective assistance

Sorrells v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-10-07

Citation: 476 S.E.2d 571, 267 Ga. 236, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3547, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 719

Snippet: included offenses. State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1, 2(2,3), 222 S.E.2d 354 (1976). Moreover, because Sorrells

Mattocks v. Matus

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-02-12

Citation: 266 Ga. 346, 466 S.E.2d 840, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 515, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 67

Snippet: findings of fact. See p. 347, supra. OCGA § 13-2-2 (3), (4); see Business Dev. Corp. v. Hartford Fire

Hodges v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-10-30

Citation: 463 S.E.2d 16, 265 Ga. 870

Snippet: statement should have been excluded under O.C.G.A. § 24-2-2.[3] Finally, the majority's reliance upon Barnes v

Battles v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1992-09-11

Citation: 420 S.E.2d 303, 262 Ga. 415, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 769

Snippet: merger rule in full. Witherspoon v. State, 262 Ga. 2, 2-3 (3) (412 SE2d 829) (1992). We now again reaffirm

Turner v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1992-07-16

Citation: 418 S.E.2d 52, 262 Ga. 359, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 1422, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 578

Snippet: accident or misfortune as set forth in OCGA § 16-2-2. [3] On cross-examination, Turner testified: I was

Berryhill v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1982-05-18

Citation: 291 S.E.2d 685, 249 Ga. 442, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1146

Snippet: month break in publicity); Brooks v. State, supra, (2 2/3 month break in publicity). Appellant relies on the