Middleton v. The State
Middleton stems from the Defendant's conviction of a litany of crimes for the armed robbery of a woman in Savannah, Georgia. Relevant here, Middleton argued to the Court of Appeals that his convictions for armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, and theft by receiving stolen property were mutually exclusive - because all three convictions related to the same vehicle.
The Court of Appeals declined to analyze the mutual exclusivity of the hijacking claim, pointing out that trial counsel for Middleton had not raised the issue at the time the verdict was rendered.
As to the robbery and theft by receiving counts, the Court of Appeals found the convictions were not mutually exclusive. Verdicts are mutually exclusive where "a guilty verdict on one count logically excludes a finding of guilt on the other." Shepherd v. State, 280 Ga. 245, 248 (2006). Here, however, the armed robbery count alleged the taking of the victim's keys and person, whereas the theft by receiving stolen property count dealt with "retain[ing] the victim's vehicle after hijacking the vehicle."
The grant of certiorari appears to deal with the hijacking and the theft counts (to which the Court of Appeals found Middleton had waived his objection).
The Court asked the parties to address two questions:
(1) Must a defendant object to the form of the verdict in order to assert on appeal that convictions are mutually exclusive?
(2) Are convictions for hijacking and theft by receiving the same vehicle mutually exclusive?
The full Court of Appeals opinion is available here.
Global Payments, Inc. v. Incomm Financial Services, Inc.
The case involves a fraudulent misrepresentation claim regarding the servicing of prepaid VISA cards. Incomm Financial Services ("IFS") issued and serviced the cards, and Global Payments Inc ("Global") sold products granting merchants access to the VISA network.
The basics of a transaction are familiar: a consumer uses the card to make a purchase from a merchant, which transmits transaction data to companies like Global. Global then either submits the transaction to VISA or declines it - usually because the transaction was irregular, unverifiable, invalid, or otherwise contained fraudulent data. If Global detected a basis for rejecting the transaction, it had a duty not to transmit the data to VISA.
The complaint in the case alleged fraudulent misrepresentation based on Global's transmission of invalid transactions. IFS alleged that Global had failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in forwarding these transactions onto them.
The Court asked the parties to address the following question:
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court's order dismissing the respondent's negligent misrepresentation claim against the petitioner for allegedly transmitting false information made by a third-party?
The Court of Appeals opinion is available here.
Crowder v. State of Georgia
Crowder involves an in rem forfeiture action for more than $46,000 seized from a passenger attempting to board a flight at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport.
The Superior Court awarded the money to Crowder, but the Court of Appeals held that (1) Crowder's answer did not comply with pleading requirements for forfeiture actions, and (2) the state sufficiently effected service of process.
The Court asked the parties to address two questions:
(1) In an in rem forfeiture proceeding, may the forfeiture complaint be served by publication in the first instance when an interest holder resides out of state?
(2) Must a trial court rule on a pending motion for more definite statement before striking a claimant's answer as insufficient?
The full Court of Appeals opinion is available here.
Denied
S19C0701. CARCAMO v. THE STATE (A19A0529)
S19C0904. BADDELEY v. THE STATE (A18A1623)
S19C0910. KNOUS v. GEORGIAN FINE PROPERTIES, LLC et al. (A18A1559)
S19C0914. GANDHI v. PATEL et al. (A18A1472, A18A1473)
S19C0919. BOLTON et al. v. GOLDEN BUSINESS, INC. (A18A1600)
S19C0921. PIERSON v. THE STATE (A18A1460)
S19C0923. WATSON v. CROWE (A18A1984)
S19C0925. JOHNSON v. THE STATE (A18A2016)
S19C0926. DEMARTINO v. THE STATE (A17A1249)
S19C0929. PATEL et al. v. GANDHI (A18A1472)
S19C0930. BURNETTE v. BARRETT et al. (A18A1705)
S19C0932. IN THE INTEREST OF S.H. et al., CHILDREN (A18A1506)
S19C0938. RIDLEY v. GEORGIA LOTTERY CORPORATION (A19A0795)
S19C0943. SUNDY v. FRIENDSHIP PAVILION ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC (A19D0345)
S19C0944. HICKMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA (A19A1337)
S19C0945. JOHNSON v. THE STATE (A19A1329)
S19C0955. SAGE et al. v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A18A1514)
S19C0961. FORD v. FORD (A18A1688)
S19C0962. IN THE INTEREST OF P.H.P., A CHILD (A18A1666)
S19C0963. WHITE-LETT v. LINEBARGER, GOGGAN, BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP et al. (A18A1557)
S19C0966. ATLANTA HAWKS BASKETBALL & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (A18A1953)
S19C0968. WATERS v. THE STATE (A18A2031)
S19C0973. FITZPATRICK v. THE STATE (A18A1762)
S19C0976. WARNOCK v. SANFORD et al. (A18A1656)
S19C0978. DEEDS v. THE STATE (A18A1644)
S19C0979. HARTMAN v. PIP-GROUP, LLC (A18A1529)
S19C0984. BURGESS v. THE STATE (A18A1596)
S19C0989. COY v. THE STATE (A18A1955)
S19C0994. JHJ JODECO 65, LLC et al. v. EMSON INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC (A18A1598)
S19C0997. SIMMONS et al. v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC et al. (A18A1702)
S19C1002. BARUTI et al. v. ONA et al. (A18A1718)
S19C1003. BYRD v. THE STATE (A18A1589, A18A1593)
S19C1010. COHAN LAW GROUP, LLC et al. v. KATZ (A18A1775)
S19C1011. CMV, LLC v. ENOCKOMAN, LLC (A18A1881)
S19C1014. WARREN AVERETT, LLC v. LANDCASTLE ACQUISITION CORP. (A18A2117)
S19C1016. WARD v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (A19A1555)
S19C1018. GEORGIA LOTTERY CORPORATION v. PATEL (A18A2143)
S19C1020. DUKE v. THE STATE (A19A1461)
S19C1037. BELL v. THE STATE (A18A1478)
S19C1049. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 732 v. METROPOLITAN ATLANTA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A18A1680)
S19C1059. YANCEY v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE (A19A1142)
S19C1069. GUTTER-PARKER v. KING (A18A1511)
S19C1074. HALL et al. v. DAVIS LAWN CARE SERVICE, INC. et al. (A19A1049)
S19C1084. THE STATE v. EVANS (A18A1895)
S19C1094. PANTERA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. BLAIR (A18A2108)
S19C1393. JCG FARMS OF ALABAMA, LLC v. HOBERT et al. (A19A0099)
S20C0243. IN THE INTEREST OF S.H. et al., CHILDREN (A18A1507)
No comments:
Post a Comment