Delbello v. Bilyeu

12 Citing cases

  1. Capote v. State

    No. S23G1127 (Ga. Oct. 31, 2024)

    Instead, we cited six civil appeals decided by this Court and one criminal appeal decided by the Court of Appeals. See Patel v. Patel, 285 Ga. 391, 392 (677 S.E.2d 114) (2009) (civil); Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 (560 S.E.2d 3) (2002) (civil); Turpin v. Todd, 271 Ga. 386, 390 (519 S.E.2d 678) (1999) (habeas corpus); Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585 (242 S.E.2d 101) (1978) (civil); Brenntag Mid South v. Smart, 308 Ga.App. 899, 902 (710 S.E.2d 569) (2011) (civil); Shook v. State, 221 Ga.App. 151, 152 (470 S.E.2d 535) (1996) (civil forfeiture); and Jones v. State, 146 Ga.App. 88, 90 (245 S.E.2d 449) (1978) (criminal).

  2. Reed v. State

    291 Ga. 10 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 77 times
    Holding that a claim that a felony murder count fails to allege the essential elements of the predicate offense "is, in essence, a special demurrer seeking greater specificity with regard to the predicate felony" (citation and punctuation omitted)

    In Georgia, it is well-settled that the “clearly erroneous” standard for reviewing findings of fact is equivalent to the highly deferential “any evidence” test. Patel v. Patel, 285 Ga. 391, 392(1)(a), 677 S.E.2d 114 (2009); Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777(1), 560 S.E.2d 3 (2002); Turpin v. Todd, 271 Ga. 386, 390, 519 S.E.2d 678 (1999); Hall v. Ault, 240 Ga. 585, 242 S.E.2d 101 (1978); Brenntag Mid South v. Smart, 308 Ga.App. 899, 902(2), 710 S.E.2d 569 (2011); Shook v. State of Ga., 221 Ga.App. 151, 152, 470 S.E.2d 535 (1996); Jones v. State, 146 Ga.App. 88, 90, 245 S.E.2d 449 (1978) (the phrase “clearly erroneous” “should not be given varying meanings depending on the type case in which” it appears). Balkcom v. Vickers, 220 Ga. 345, 348(1)(i), 138 S.E.2d 868 (1964), which compares the “any evidence” standard with federal standards of review, is hereby overruled to the extent that it implies that, in Georgia, the “any evidence” rule differs from the “clearly erroneous” standard.

  3. Lafont v. Rouviere

    656 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Affirming judgment granting custody to mother, where trial court—after being presented with evidence that, inter alia, child had close bond with mother, mother had served as primary caretaker, and father had engaged in adulterous conduct—based its custody ruling on the child’s best interest

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 (1) ( 560 SE2d 3) (2002). Regarding her employment prospects in the United States, Rouviere presented evidence that she did not have a permit to work in the United States at the time of trial.

  4. Fletcher v. Ellenburg

    279 Ga. 52 (Ga. 2005)   Cited 11 times

    A trial court's factual findings in a non-jury trial may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. OCGA § 9-11-52 (a); Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776 (1) ( 560 SE2d 3) (2002). Where, as here, the findings of the probate court are supported by any evidence, they will not be disturbed on appeal. See id.

  5. Brown v. Brown

    592 S.E.2d 854 (Ga. 2003)

    OCGA § 53-4-20 (a).Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 ( 560 S.E.2d 3) (2002). The probate court also found that the will was improperly executed because Bobby Brown's purported signature was in the wrong place on the will.

  6. Cross v. Stokes

    275 Ga. 872 (Ga. 2002)   Cited 10 times

    Probate courts have exercised their declaratory judgment jurisdiction in several reported decisions. See, e.g., Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776 ( 560 S.E.2d 3) (2002); Emmertz v. Cherry, 271 Ga. 458 ( 520 S.E.2d 219) (1999); Lamb v. Nationsbank, 270 Ga. 388 ( 507 S.E.2d 457) (1998). See also Simon v. Bunch, 260 Ga. 201 n. 1 ( 391 S.E.2d 648) (1990); Wausau Ins. Co. v. King, 191 Ga. App. 329 (1) ( 381 S.E.2d 574) (1989).

  7. Simmons v. England

    323 Ga. App. 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    But those are simply issues for the factfinder, which must identify the business interests. See Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777(1), 560 S.E.2d 3 (2002) (trial court as factfinder determined what testator intended to include in his bequest of “personal property”). Accordingly, the judgment of the superior court is reversed and the case is remanded for the factfinder to determine which assets exist to fill the bequest of business interests.

  8. Airport Auth. v. City of St. Marys

    678 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    However, we review the trial court's conclusions of law de novo.Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 (1) ( 560 SE2d 3) (2002).Burnette v. Caplan, 287 Ga. App. 142, 143 ( 650 SE2d 798) (2007).

  9. In re Estate of Sands-Kadel

    292 Ga. App. 343 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a motion to recuse did not affect a ruling made before it was filed

    Id. See Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 777 (2) ( 560 SE2d 3) (2002). 3. Kadel argues that Judge Brown erred "in ruling on the motion for recusal and in appointing another judge to hear this case."

  10. In re Estate of Barr

    630 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 778 (3) ( 560 SE2d 3) (2002). That the probate court entered its judgment ultimately characterizing the Co-executors' claims as "dubious" and concluded that they had withheld payment of Barr's bequest "without authority" does not make it otherwise.