Downside Risk, Inc. v. Marta

7 Citing cases

  1. Savage v. State

    556 S.E.2d 176 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    Holt v. State, 244 Ga. App. 341, 344 (3) ( 535 S.E.2d 514) (2000).Downside Risk v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202, 206 (5) ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983). 4. Savage claims that the trial court erred by failing to define for the jury the terms "actual physical control" and "driving," which failure, together with the charge given, improperly relieved the State of its burden of proof.

  2. Campbell v. Cozad

    427 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, the testimony was not admissible on this particular ground (OCGA § 24-9-83), as a witness may not be impeached by proof of contradictory statements without first laying the requisite statutory foundation. Downside Risk v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202, 204 (2) ( 308 S.E.2d 547). However, a witness may also be impeached by disproving material facts testified to by him (OCGA § 24-9-82), and no foundation is required for admission of evidence for this specific purpose ( Cartin v. Boles, 155 Ga. App. 248, 256 (7) ( 270 S.E.2d 799)). Impeachment conducted solely in reliance on the plain language of this statute does not extend to an impeachment of the mere expression of an opinion by a witness (see OCGA § 24-9-82), although any facts testified to in support of that opinion would, of course, be subject to impeachment by disproof thereof (compare Eason v. State, 260 Ga. 445, 446 ( 396 S.E.2d 492)).

  3. Dept. of Transp. v. Fitzpatrick

    361 S.E.2d 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    ]" Department of Transp. v. Dent, supra at 94 (1). See also Downside Risk, Inc. v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202, 206 (6) ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983). Since there was no probative evidence whatsoever as to any permanent business losses which were attributable to the condemnation, the general grounds of appellant's motion for new trial were meritorious as to this element of appellees' recovery.

  4. Alexie, Inc. v. Old South Bottle Shop Corp.

    179 Ga. App. 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 12 times

    Further, "`[i]t is now well settled that, simply because a request to charge [cit.] is apt, correct and pertinent, it is not necessarily error to fail to charge it, but the test is whether the court substantially covered the principles embodied therein [cits.] or whether it was "sufficiently or substantially covered by the general charge" [cit.].' [Cit.]" Downside Risk, Inc. v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202, 206 (5) ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983). Since the record reveals the trial court's charge covered the principles in appellants' requested charge, no reversible error was presented in appellants' enumerations.

  5. T. G. Y. Stores Co. v. Waters

    175 Ga. App. 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming denial of motion for directed verdict on claim for punitive damages in action for trespass

    Even though the evidence may raise the issue in the requested jury instruction, a request to charge must be correct and perfect. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas, 229 Ga. 301 ( 190 S.E.2d 898) (1972); Downside Risk v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202 (6) ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983). We find appellants' request No. 1 was incomplete and imperfect as it did not provide a complete statement setting forth the bases of punitive damages.

  6. Vinson v. E. W. Buschman Co.

    323 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Vinson, a district manager and another employee of a manufacturer's district office formed a competing business and operated for it approximately eight years out of the manufacturer's office and warehouse.

    3. The trial court must give jury instructions on all issues raised by the pleadings or the evidence; the instructions should be adjusted to the evidence actually presented at trial. See, e.g., Downside Risk v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202 ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983); Fowler v. Gorrell, 148 Ga. App. 573 ( 251 S.E.2d 819) (1978); Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., 121 Ga. App. 362 ( 173 S.E.2d 741) (1970). The record in the case sub judice reveals that the three jury instructions enumerated as error are all correct statements of relevant Georgia law. Request # 5 states: "I charge you that an unfaithful agent is entitled to no commissions. If you find that Vinson, Angle, or either of them, were unfaithful agents of Buschman, regardless of whether you also find that they were employees of Buschman, then those among them who were unfaithful may not retain any compensation they received from Buschman . . . during the period you find them to have been unfaithful to Buschman."

  7. Dept. of Transp. v. Clower

    318 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times

    Evidence of uniqueness must be shown to justify an award to the appellee for the destruction of his business. Downside Risk v. MARTA, 168 Ga. App. 202, 204 ( 308 S.E.2d 547) (1983). "[U]nique property is simply property which must be valued by something other than the fair market value standard."