As the year comes to a close, The Phillips Law Firm shares warm holiday wishes with our clients and community. Watch our holiday video and celebrate the season with us.
Forgery in Georgia is a serious felony that can harm your career and freedom. Learn about charges, penalties, and defenses from a Marietta criminal defense lawyer.
The Georgia First Offender Act offers a vital second chance for individuals facing their first criminal charge. This statute allows eligible defendants in Cobb County, Bartow County, and Paulding County to avoid a formal conviction and have their records sealed upon successful completion of probation. Learn how The Phillips Law Firm helps clients use this law to rebuild their lives and protect their futures.
A Georgia woman who developed mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos dust from her father’s work clothes brought her case before the Georgia Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the manufacturer had no duty to warn of unforeseeable exposure but allowed her defective design claim to proceed under the state’s risk-utility test. The decision underscores how Georgia courts balance liability, product design, and duty of care — key factors in personal injury and toxic exposure cases across Cobb, Bartow, and Paulding Counties.
Two defendants in Cherokee County faced felony convictions for making false statements to police, after their claims against a school superintendent were disproven by surveillance video. The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s decision but sent the case back for resentencing, finding ambiguity in the statute that could reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. This case highlights the serious consequences of providing false information to law enforcement and the importance of having an experienced criminal defense attorney when facing similar allegations in Cobb, Bartow, or Paulding County.
A Cherokee County DUI case prompted the Georgia Court of Appeals to clarify how double jeopardy laws apply when multiple charges stem from a single incident. The defendant argued that paying a seat belt fine barred further prosecution for DUI and related offenses. However, the Court ruled that because each charge had a separate case number, prosecutors were not aware of the other citation — meaning double jeopardy did not apply. The decision reinforces how Georgia courts interpret procedural double jeopardy and the importance of legal counsel in defending against multiple criminal charges in Cobb, Bartow, and Paulding County.
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently clarified the limits of protective orders in cases involving parental visitation rights. A Paulding County father appealed a ruling that restricted contact with his children after his wife obtained a protective order. While the Appeals Court upheld the trial court’s decision not to dismiss the order, it ruled that judges cannot permanently block visitation rights under such orders. This decision underscores the balance between family safety and parental rights in Georgia’s legal system.
The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the Randolph County conviction of a defendant found guilty of murder, aggravated assault, and child cruelty.
The defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, claiming his attorney failed to secure an expert witness for an insanity defense and neglected to suppress incriminating hospital statements.
The Georgia Supreme Court recently addressed a landmark case that expanded how courts view the value of pets in negligence claims.
Robert and Elizabeth Monyak sued Barking Hound Village after their dog, Lola, died from being given the wrong medication. The lower courts limited recovery to Lola’s fair market value, but the Supreme Court clarified that owners may also recover reasonable veterinary expenses incurred due to another party’s negligence.
The Georgia Supreme Court recently issued a key ruling clarifying when the duty to preserve evidence arises in a medical malpractice case.
The case involved Lee Phillips and Santhonia Hector, who sued Henry Medical Center after their child suffered severe injuries during birth. The plaintiffs claimed that the hospital destroyed fetal heart monitor strips, which were vital to proving their case, and asked the court to issue a spoliation charge—a legal instruction to the jury about destroyed evidence.
