Carlton Mobley

This case involves an appeal by Ramon B. Maloof from a contempt judgment for failing to comply with a temporary alimony order in an ongoing divorce action between the parties, along with modifications to that order. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed most of the trial court's decisions, including its authority under state law to revise temporary alimony orders at any time, awards such as use of a station wagon and business proceeds to the wife, and enforcement of obligations like mortgage payments and utility bills, presuming the evidence supported these rulings absent a transcript. The court reversed in part, however, holding that the order's broad prohibition on any discussion of one parent by the other with the children was unreasonable and void, so the contempt finding and loss of visitation rights on that ground could not stand.

family law

The case involved the Chatham Association of Educators suing the local school board to enforce a master contract and resolution that granted the association the right to allocate funds for teachers' salary increases and an insurance program. The board had initially adopted the resolution but later refused to implement the insurance part. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the contract and resolution were void as illegal delegations of the board's authority to manage school operations and allocate public funds without specific legislative authorization. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that school boards cannot delegate their constitutional and statutory duties to others.

labor & employment

This case involved a divorce action in which the wife sought a divorce on grounds of cruel treatment and the husband filed a cross-complaint on the same ground; the jury awarded the divorce and alimony to the wife. The husband appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, raising claims of error regarding the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on impeachment of a witness, the admission of testimony from the wife's daughter about the husband's conduct discovered after separation, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of cruel treatment. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that no timely written request for an impeachment charge had been made, that post-separation discovery of the conduct did not render the evidence inadmissible, and that the wife's evidence of repeated physical and emotional abuse over ten years was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The decision relied on prior precedents regarding jury charges, admissibility of evidence in divorce cases, and the elements of cruel treatment.

family law

In Blincoe v. State, the defendant was indicted for marijuana possession under Georgia's Drug Abuse Control Act and moved to quash the indictment, claiming the law violated due process, privacy rights, equal protection, and protections against cruel and unusual punishment because marijuana is not harmful. The trial court denied the motion, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state can criminalize possession of dangerous drugs and that the record did not clearly prove marijuana harmless. The court reasoned that legislative acts are presumed constitutional unless clearly in conflict with fundamental law, Stanley v. Georgia does not protect private possession of drugs, the classification of marijuana is not arbitrary, and the legislature has discretion to decide which substances to prohibit.

criminal law

This case involved a divorce action brought by Louise Cash Easterling against James Hardy Easterling, resulting in a judgment granting the wife a divorce, alimony, attorney fees, and property. The husband appealed, claiming errors in dismissing his defensive pleading via oral motion, proceeding to trial without a jury, and lack of notice of the trial date. The court held that the motion could be made orally during trial, that there was no merit to the jury claim since the appellant failed to appear, and that there is a presumption of regularity in superior court proceedings that cannot be rebutted on direct appeal without prior judicial determination of the factual issue. The judgment was affirmed.

family lawprocedure

This case involves a husband's appeal from a divorce and alimony judgment in favor of his wife and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the appeal was timely despite a premature motion for new trial, that evidence supported the verdict, and that the trial court properly excluded irrelevant details from prior tort lawsuits involving the couple's son and declined to instruct the jury on certain settlement agreements between the parties. The reasoning centered on the agreements' lack of proper presentation or validity for court approval, the irrelevance of the lawsuit complaints to the divorce issues, and established precedent allowing a jury or court discretion in alimony matters even with agreements.

family lawprocedure