From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 30, 1998
230 Ga. App. 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

A97A2214.

DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1998 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 11, 1998.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Troup Superior Court. Before Judge Keeble.

Franklin H. Thornton, for appellants.

Nall, Miller, Owens, Hocutt Howard, Michael D. Hostetter, for appellees.


Roberts and Core appeal from the dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the city of West Point and three of its police officers, including Brown, resulting from a search claimed to be illegal.

The complaint was dismissed, based on the statute of limitations, pursuant to the defendants' motion. For two reasons, we affirm.

1. First, plaintiffs filed no response to the motion below and we do not consider arguments made here for the first time. Cornelius v. Wood, 223 Ga. App. 339, 341 (1) ( 477 S.E.2d 595) (1996).

2. Second, even if we were to consider the argument made, the issue has been determined adversely to plaintiffs. Doe #102 v. Dept. of Corrections, 268 Ga. 582, 583 (2) ( 492 S.E.2d 516) (1997); Day v. Brown, 207 Ga. App. 134, 135 (1) ( 427 S.E.2d 104) (1993).

3. Because there is no reasonable basis upon which appellants could conclude this appeal had merit, a penalty of $500 will be imposed by the trial court upon receipt of the remittitur, pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b).

Judgment affirmed with direction. Johnson and Blackburn, JJ., concur.


DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1998 — RECONSIDERATION DENIED FEBRUARY 11, 1998.


Summaries of

Roberts v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jan 30, 1998
230 Ga. App. 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Roberts v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:ROBERTS et al. v. BROWN et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 30, 1998

Citations

230 Ga. App. 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
496 S.E.2d 494

Citing Cases

Vanorsdall v. State

Lucas v. State, 234 Ga. App. 534, 535 (1) ( 507 S.E.2d 253) (1998). See Scott v. State, 230 Ga. App. 522, 524…

State v. Mondor

The state must also show that the accused either knew or should have known that the circumstances required…