On Tuesday, Oct. 18 at 9:30 a.m. the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia will hear oral arguments in the first-floor moot courtroom at Mercer Law School. The annual visit will provide an opportunity for students and the local community to observe the Court in action. The panel that will hear cases at the Law School includes Judge Herbert E. Phipps, presiding, Judge Stephen Louis A. Dillard and Judge Nels S.D. Peterson. The cases to be heard as part of the Fifth Division of the Court includes New Cingular Wireless v. Georgia Department of Revenue, Westbrook and Gould v. Atlanta Gas Light Company, Davis v. Georgia, and Harris v. Mahone.
At the start of the session, the Court will hold a short admission ceremony allowing any recent law school graduates, alumni or members of the local bar who are not already admitted to the Court of Appeals to be admitted at the special session. If you are interested in being admitted to the Bar of the Court of Appeals of Georgia on October 18, please contact Leslie Cadle at Mercer Law School for further details.
Case No. A16A2003, New Cingular Wireless v. Georgia Department of Revenue, involves an appeal, by wireless telephone companies, of a trial court ruling that upheld the Department of Revenue’s decision to deny a refund of sales taxes to the companies that the companies claim the Department erroneously collected from them.
Case No. A16A2072, Westbrook and Gould v. Atlanta Gas Light Company, involves an appeal of the decision of a trial court to grant summary judgment to Atlanta Gas Light Company and dismiss a negligence lawsuit that the appellants brought against Atlanta Gas Light Company when the appellants were injured in a natural gas explosion.
Case No. A16A1650, Davis v. Georgia, is a criminal appeal that presents the question whether an order of the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles that pardoned appellant absolved the appellant from any duty to register as a sex offender pursuant to O.C.G.A. §42-1-12.
Case No. A16A1748, Harris v. Mahone, presents the question whether the trial court correctly interpreted the state’s “offer of judgment” statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68, when it denied the appellant’s request for attorneys’ fees under that statute.