Hannula v. Ramey

14 Citing cases

  1. Washington v. State

    333 Ga. App. 236 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Explaining that "in Georgia, verdicts acquire their legality from return and publication," which occurs "when [the verdict] is agreed upon by the jury, written out, signed by the jury foreperson, and delivered to the clerk, by the direction and in the presence of the judge"

    We believe that the ends of justice, and equality of right and privilege between parties, will be best promoted by the following rule, to wit: a party shall not dismiss or be nonsuit in any case, after the publication of the verdict, and it shall be considered as published, eo instanti, in which it is handed to the plaintiff's counsel or other person directed by the Court to receive it. ”); WellStar Health Sys., Inc. v. Sutton, 318 Ga.App. 802, 804(2), 734 S.E.2d 764 (2012) (“Where a jury agree on their verdict, write it out, have it signed by their foreman, and deliver it to the clerk, by the direction and in the presence of the judge, it is published.” (punctuation omitted)); Bell v. State, 163 Ga.App. 672, 674(1), 295 S.E.2d 147 (1982) (same); Irvine, 15 Ga.App. at 269, 82 S.E. 819 (same) ; see also Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga.App. 512, 513(1), 339 S.E.2d 735 (1986) (“When a verdict has been received by the clerk of the court, and read at the direction of the judge, it has been published.”); Haughton v. Judsen, 116 Ga.App. 308, 311(2), 157 S.E.2d 297 (1967) (“The record indicates that when the jury had reached a consensus and returned to the box the judge inquired of them whether they had reached verdicts in the cases; one of them replied that they had and the judge then directed the clerk to receive and publish the verdicts. Thereupon the clerk took the petitions on which the verdicts had been written and read the verdicts in open court.

  2. Howe Associates, P.C. v. Daniels

    280 Ga. 803 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    Id. Howe Associates also asserts that the Court of Appeals erroneously based its decision on authority holding that an announcement by a trial judge of its intention to rule precludes the filing of a voluntary dismissal, despite the language of OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). See, e.g., Jones v. Burton, 238 Ga. 394 (1) ( 233 SE2d 367) (1977); Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512 (1) ( 339 SE2d 735) (1986). A proper reading of Howe Assoc, supra, however, shows that the court merely "analogized" to that line of authority.

  3. Georgia v. Turpin

    294 Ga. App. 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    However, a charge is only justified when there is some evidence upon which to base it, and in this case, there was no such evidence. See Hannula v. Barney, 177 Ga. App. 512, 513 (2) ( 339 SE2d 735) (1986). "The burden is upon the party asserting that the opposite party could have lessened his damages, and such proof must include sufficient data to allow the jury to reasonably estimate how much the damages could have been mitigated."

  4. Rice v. Champion Buildings

    288 Ga. App. 597 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    Emphasis supplied. See Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512, 513 (1) ( 339 SE2d 735) (1986); Vanderbreggen v. Hodge, 171 Ga. App. 868 (2) ( 321 SE2d 218) (1984); Smith v. Forrester, 145 Ga. App. 281, 283 ( 243 SE2d 575) (1978). See Vanderbreggen, supra.

  5. Howe Associates, P.C. v. Daniels

    274 Ga. App. 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    In such cases, the trial courts routinely set aside the dismissals and reinstate the actions to effect the announced decision. See, e.g., Leary v. Julian, 225 Ga. App. 472, 473-474 (1) ( 484 SE2d 75) (1997); Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512 (1) ( 339 SE2d 735) (1986). In a similar manner, the existence of the OCGA § 15-19-14 (b) attorney's lien prevents a plaintiff from filing an effective dismissal of the complaint sufficient to defeat that lien, and allows the trial court to vacate the dismissal, revive the original action, and preserve the lien.

  6. Wachovia Bank Savannah, N.A. v. Kitchen

    272 Ga. App. 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Jones v. Burton, 238 Ga. 394 ( 233 SE2d 367) (1977).Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512 ( 339 SE2d 735) (1986).Groves v. Groves, 250 Ga. 459 ( 298 SE2d 506) (1983).

  7. Sims v. Heath

    258 Ga. App. 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 17 times

    OCGA § 9-12-5; Fried v. Fried, 208 Ga. 861(3) ( 69 S.E.2d 862) (1952). See Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512, 513(1) ( 339 S.E.2d 735) (1986).Davis v. Wright, 194 Ga. 1, 6(4) ( 21 S.E.2d 88) (1942).

  8. United States Fidelity c. v. Paul Assoc

    230 Ga. App. 243 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to adopt § 552B of Restatement of Torts, 2d, because existing statutory and common law adequately addressed issue of damages

    Based upon the verdict, the jury did, in fact, apply evidence of failure to mitigate; the jury, in fact, reduced the damages awarded based upon evidence of failure to mitigate, and reached the same result. The evidence before the jury justified the jury instruction on USFG's duty to mitigate its damages by the exercise of ordinary care. Southern Bell Tel. c. Co. v. Don Hammond, Inc., 198 Ga. App. 517 ( 402 S.E.2d 112) (1991); Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512 ( 339 S.E.2d 735) (1986); Thico Plan, Inc. v. Ashkouti, 171 Ga. App. 536 ( 320 S.E.2d 604) (1984); Butler v. Anderson, 163 Ga. App. 547 ( 295 S.E.2d 216) (1982); Gleason v. Rhodes Center Pharmacy, 94 Ga. App. 439 ( 95 S.E.2d 293) (1956); Smith v. Hightower, 80 Ga. App. 293 ( 55 S.E.2d 872) (1949). The trial court, believing that the evidence raised issues of comparative and contributory negligence, erroneously charged OCGA § 51-12-33, which authorizes a jury that it "may apportion its award of damages" and may disregard joint and several liability of joint tortfeasors when the plaintiff also was "to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed."

  9. Leary v. Julian

    225 Ga. App. 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the parties' announcement of their settlement in open court, which the court adopted in an oral ruling, precluded a subsequent voluntary dismissal

    Such a dismissal, however, is precluded as soon as the trial court announces a finding, judgment, or decision that serves to terminate the litigation. Jones v. Burton, 238 Ga. 394, 396 ( 233 S.E.2d 367) (1977); see also Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512 ( 339 S.E.2d 735) (1986). When a judicial determination is made in open court, there is no requirement that its substance be memorialized in writing or reduced to an order to be effective against the parties or the plaintiff's right to dismiss the claim.

  10. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McCord

    414 S.E.2d 508 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times
    In McCord, the court rejected the argument that an out-of-state attorney who was engaged in at least ten pending FELA cases had violated the Georgia rule limiting pro hac vice appearances to "isolated cases.

    There being some evidence authorizing the charge on automatic couplers, the trial court did not err in presenting this issue to the jury. Hannula v. Ramey, 177 Ga. App. 512, 513 (2) ( 339 S.E.2d 735). Defendant's sole objection to the charge at issue was that it was not authorized by the evidence.