Filter This View

  • Ogle v. State

    Publication Date: 2004-11-12
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William C. Lea and Donald F. Samuel Garland, Samuel & Loeb PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Jeffrey H. Brickman, Acting District Attorney, Robert M. Coker, Assistant District Attorney, Decatur, for appellee.
    Case Number: A04A2343

    The state's forensic interviewing expert did not give an opinion on the ultimate issue when she testified based on her extensive experience that the victim's interview was consistent with one given

  • Garrett v. State

    Publication Date: 2003-05-02
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald F. Samuel and William C. Lea Garland, Samuel & Loeb PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Thomas J. Campbell, District Attorney, and Mickey R. Thacker, Assistant District Attorney, Cartersville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A02A2197

    A metal-roofed storage shed that was open on three sides and was accessible from the main building was part of the main building for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 1

  • Garrett v. State

    Publication Date: 2003-01-10
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Donald F. Samuel and William C. Lea Garland, Samuel & Loeb PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Thomas J. Campbell, District Attorney, and Mickey R. Thacker, Assistant District Attorney, Cartersville, for appellee.
    Case Number: A02A2197

    A metal roofed storage shed that was open on three sides and was accessible from the main building was part of the main building for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 1

  • Nix v. Cox Enters. Inc.

    Publication Date: 2002-04-19
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edward T. Garland and Nelson O. Tyrone III Garland, Samuel & Loeb PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Peter C. Canfield and Thomas M. Clyde Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Atlanta, for appellee.
    Case Number: A00A0070

    The Court of Appeals adopted the Supreme Court's judgment that the trial court erred in ruling that a jury issue remained as to whether articles that were basis of attorney's libel claim were privil

  • Nix v. Cox Enters. Inc. d/b/a The Atlanta Constitution

    Publication Date: 2001-02-23
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edward T.M. Garland and Nelson O. Tyrone III Garland, Samuel & Loeb, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Peter C. Canfield and Thomas M. Clyde Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Atlanta, for appellees.
    Case Number: A00A0070

    The Court of Appeals partially reversed the grant of summary judgment to a publishing company and its newspaper on an attorney's defamation claim arising out of two articles that characterized him a

  • Fontaine v. Sidelines IV Inc.

    Publication Date: 2000-09-15
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jay E. Loeb Olim & Loeb LLP, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Kevin L. Ward, Erin S. Stone Schulten, Ward & Turner LLP, Atlanta, and Helena K. Katzenstein, Marietta, for appellees.
    Case Number: A00A1937

    Defendants did not breach their loan agreement with plaintiff by refusing to enter into a second loan, since the loan agreement did not obligate defendants to borrow additional

  • Nix v. Cox Enters. Inc. d/b/a The Atlanta Constitution

    Publication Date: 2000-03-17
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Eldridge, Frank M.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Edward T.M. Garland and Nelson O. Tyrone III Garland, Samuel & Loeb PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Peter C. Canfield and Thomas M. Clyde Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Atlanta, for appellees.
    Case Number: A00A0070

    The trial court should have treated the defendant's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because the defendant relied on evidence from a separate lawsuit to show that its newspaper art