Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Appellate Practice And Procedure, Roland F.L. Hall
Appellate Practice And Procedure, Roland F.L. Hall
Mercer Law Review
This Article surveys decisions addressing appellate law and procedure handed down by the Georgia appellate courts between June 1, 2006 and May 31, 2007. The cases discussed fall into the following categories: (1) appellate jurisdiction, (2) preserving the record, (3) timeliness of appeal, and (4) miscellaneous cases of interest.
Trial Practice And Procedure, Kate S. Cook, Alan J. Hamilton, Brandon L. Peak, John C. Morrison Iii
Trial Practice And Procedure, Kate S. Cook, Alan J. Hamilton, Brandon L. Peak, John C. Morrison Iii
Mercer Law Review
The Georgia Appellate Courts continue to consider and clarify the impact of the Tort Reform Act of 2005 on trial practice and procedure while addressing other legislation and case law similarly imperative to litigation in Georgia courts. Although the Georgia General Assembly enacted less legislation related to trial practice and procedure during this survey period than in recent years, the few laws passed are noteworthy.
Class Actions, Thomas M. Byrne
Class Actions, Thomas M. Byrne
Mercer Law Review
In terms of significant class action decisions, 2006 was one of the Eleventh Circuit's busiest years in recent memory. Among other rulings, the court established the ground rules for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) classes. The year also presented the court with its first opportunity to address some of the many interpretative questions posed by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Ashby L. Kent
Trial Practice And Procedure, John O'Shea Sullivan, Ashby L. Kent
Mercer Law Review
The 2006 survey period yielded several noteworthy decisions in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals relating to federal trial practice and procedure, many of which involved issues of first impression. This Article analyzes several recent developments in the Eleventh Circuit, including significant rulings in the areas of class actions, subject matter jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, judicial estoppel, civil procedure, and other issues of interest to the trial practitioner.
Appellate Practice And Procedure, K. Todd Butler
Appellate Practice And Procedure, K. Todd Butler
Mercer Law Review
This Article reviews federal appellate procedure decisions in the Eleventh Circuit during the 2006 calendar year. Questions considered this year include the role of the notice of appeal in federal appellate jurisdiction, which is addressed in the first section below. The second section addresses the necessity of a final order for appeal, with emphasis on conditional final orders and when they are subject to appeal. The third section addresses the necessity of raising issues before the district court in order to preserve them for appeal.
Crawford V. Washington And Davis V. Washington'S Originalism: Historical Arguments Showing Child Abuse Victims' Statements To Physicians Are Nontestimonial And Admissible As An Exception To The Confrontation Clause, Tom Harbinson
Mercer Law Review
Under Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, the Supreme Court has created a new interpretation of the right of confrontation that holds out-of-court testimonial statements inadmissible without cross-examination. In order to determine if statements for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment should continue to be an exception to confrontation, this Article reviews the historical evidence cited by the Court. The Court's originalist analysis holds that the only exception for what the Court refers to as "testimonial statements" is the exception for dying declarations. This Article establishes that a significant number of confrontation exceptions existed for testimonial statements in …
Definitely Not Harmless: The Supreme Court Holds That The Erroneous Disqualification Of Retained Counsel Warrants Automatic Reversal In United States V. Gonzalez-Lopez, James A. Robson
Mercer Law Review
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, the United States Supreme Court held that the erroneous disqualification of a criminal defendant's retained choice of counsel violates the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must result in the automatic reversal of the defendant's conviction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected the Government's argument that a defendant who is denied his choice of counsel must prove prejudice by showing the defendant's substitute counsel was ineffective within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington. Instead, the Court concluded that because a complete violation of the Sixth Amendment's Counsel Clause occurs when …