Essay Available:
You are here: Home → Coursework → Law
Pages:
2 pages/≈550 words
Sources:
No Sources
Level:
MLA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Coursework
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 11.66
Topic:
Court of Appeals of Georgia Case: Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C. (Coursework Sample)
Instructions:
I downloaded the case and the example what I want you do like. Kindly find it in the attachments.
source..Content:
Name
Course
Tutor
University
Case Brief 1
Citation / Parties
Name of parties
Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C.
Deciding court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Year case decided
April 19, 2012
Page in casebook
No. A12A0558
Key players
Appellant: Morris
Appellee: Dentfirst P.C.
Procedural history
How issues got to court
Without conducting a hearing, the trial court awarded the motion for a summary judgment to Dentfirst on grounds that in filing her complaint suit, Morris had been barred by the statute of limitation.
Court happening
The appellant filed a case at the trial court alleging that the appellee had negligently conducted treatment on her tooth that led to some fragments of the tooth remaining in his gum causing an injury.
However, her claim was subjected to the statute of limitation by the court.
Winner/looser
Winner: Dentfirst P.C.
Exact winning or loss
Case Affirmed.
Appellant’s plea
Morris's appeal filed a strong two-pronged issue of law.
The first was that the OCGA in section 9-3-71(a) explicitly states that apart from the provisions of the article, a medical malpractice action shall be instituted within twenty-four months after the day on which the death or injury arising from a wrongful omission or act of negligence took place. However, the appellant argued that the same statute in section 9-3-72 that provides clearly that the code of limitation in 9-7-1 shall not be applicable where a foreign object has been abandoned in the body of the patient rather it will be instituted one year after such wrongful omission or act was discovered.
Facts
Critical facts
Morris Kamira approached Dentfirst grumbling over a tooth pain on the 9th of February, 2009. Later on the next day, he came back and had her tooth extracted by Billingsley. Afterward, she came back to Dentfirst twice both on the 11th and 23rd of February, 2009, and even went to an emergency healthcare provider on the 8th of March, 2009. On both of the occasions, she was complaining of swelling and pain. She makes allegations, which are so far undisputed that on returning to Dentfirst on the 10th of March, 2009, Billingsley carried out an x-ray scan that revealed fragments of a tooth and removed them surgically.
Issues
Specific questions
1. The trial court erred in law granting the summary judgment since section 9-3-72 of the OCGA automatically compelled the court to give her audience.
2. The trial court erred by giving a summary judgment since the fragments of tooth constituted an object of foreign nature as provided for in section 9-3-72 of the OCGA.
Holding
On April 2012, the Court of Appeal of Georgia affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Rules
Legality of the ruling
Golden nugget
Reasoning
Policy
Facts
It is not in dispute that Morris had knowledge or should have had knowledge about the injury. Clearly, through the exercise of diligence and reasonable care, the reasons behind the alleged tooth wound at a date earlier than either the 9th of February, 2009, during the commencement of the pain, or when the fragments of the tooth were found on the 10th of March, 2009. Using this reasoning, it is evident that even section 9-3-722 was violated by the appellant since she instituted the case after more than one year of such knowledge.
Rationale
Judgment
The trial court correctly directed itself both in law and in fact by granting the appellee a summary judgment.
Synthesis
Regardless of the injury suffered by the appellant, the statute was upheld and therefore shielding the appellee from suits that are intrinsically statutory barred.
Impression/Notes
The central value that is exhibited through the case is the theme of being active rather than indolent. Victims, therefore, would lose a right if they sleep on them for too long that they are barred by a statute of limitation.
Case Brief 2
Citation / Parties
Name of parties
Roba vs. Dotson.
Deciding court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Year case decided
April 30, 2012
Page in casebook
No. A12A0399.
Key players
Appellants: Roba
Appellees: Dotson
Procedural history
How issues got to court
After carrying out a hearing, the Trial Court in finding out a breach of contract of selling a real property awarded the appellees an excess of damages valued at $36,367.45 which were for Dotson on Roba's counterclaim. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court.
Court happening
Roba does not debate that the proof was enough to support the trial court's finding that he violated the contract to buy the real property for $55,000.00 by declining to effect the sale on September 5, 2008, the closing date of the agreement. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court.
Winner/looser
Winner: Roba
Exact winning or loss
Case Reversal
Appellant’s plea
Roba argues that the trial court incorrectly awarded...
Course
Tutor
University
Case Brief 1
Citation / Parties
Name of parties
Morris vs. Dentfirst P.C.
Deciding court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Year case decided
April 19, 2012
Page in casebook
No. A12A0558
Key players
Appellant: Morris
Appellee: Dentfirst P.C.
Procedural history
How issues got to court
Without conducting a hearing, the trial court awarded the motion for a summary judgment to Dentfirst on grounds that in filing her complaint suit, Morris had been barred by the statute of limitation.
Court happening
The appellant filed a case at the trial court alleging that the appellee had negligently conducted treatment on her tooth that led to some fragments of the tooth remaining in his gum causing an injury.
However, her claim was subjected to the statute of limitation by the court.
Winner/looser
Winner: Dentfirst P.C.
Exact winning or loss
Case Affirmed.
Appellant’s plea
Morris's appeal filed a strong two-pronged issue of law.
The first was that the OCGA in section 9-3-71(a) explicitly states that apart from the provisions of the article, a medical malpractice action shall be instituted within twenty-four months after the day on which the death or injury arising from a wrongful omission or act of negligence took place. However, the appellant argued that the same statute in section 9-3-72 that provides clearly that the code of limitation in 9-7-1 shall not be applicable where a foreign object has been abandoned in the body of the patient rather it will be instituted one year after such wrongful omission or act was discovered.
Facts
Critical facts
Morris Kamira approached Dentfirst grumbling over a tooth pain on the 9th of February, 2009. Later on the next day, he came back and had her tooth extracted by Billingsley. Afterward, she came back to Dentfirst twice both on the 11th and 23rd of February, 2009, and even went to an emergency healthcare provider on the 8th of March, 2009. On both of the occasions, she was complaining of swelling and pain. She makes allegations, which are so far undisputed that on returning to Dentfirst on the 10th of March, 2009, Billingsley carried out an x-ray scan that revealed fragments of a tooth and removed them surgically.
Issues
Specific questions
1. The trial court erred in law granting the summary judgment since section 9-3-72 of the OCGA automatically compelled the court to give her audience.
2. The trial court erred by giving a summary judgment since the fragments of tooth constituted an object of foreign nature as provided for in section 9-3-72 of the OCGA.
Holding
On April 2012, the Court of Appeal of Georgia affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Rules
Legality of the ruling
Golden nugget
Reasoning
Policy
Facts
It is not in dispute that Morris had knowledge or should have had knowledge about the injury. Clearly, through the exercise of diligence and reasonable care, the reasons behind the alleged tooth wound at a date earlier than either the 9th of February, 2009, during the commencement of the pain, or when the fragments of the tooth were found on the 10th of March, 2009. Using this reasoning, it is evident that even section 9-3-722 was violated by the appellant since she instituted the case after more than one year of such knowledge.
Rationale
Judgment
The trial court correctly directed itself both in law and in fact by granting the appellee a summary judgment.
Synthesis
Regardless of the injury suffered by the appellant, the statute was upheld and therefore shielding the appellee from suits that are intrinsically statutory barred.
Impression/Notes
The central value that is exhibited through the case is the theme of being active rather than indolent. Victims, therefore, would lose a right if they sleep on them for too long that they are barred by a statute of limitation.
Case Brief 2
Citation / Parties
Name of parties
Roba vs. Dotson.
Deciding court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Year case decided
April 30, 2012
Page in casebook
No. A12A0399.
Key players
Appellants: Roba
Appellees: Dotson
Procedural history
How issues got to court
After carrying out a hearing, the Trial Court in finding out a breach of contract of selling a real property awarded the appellees an excess of damages valued at $36,367.45 which were for Dotson on Roba's counterclaim. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court.
Court happening
Roba does not debate that the proof was enough to support the trial court's finding that he violated the contract to buy the real property for $55,000.00 by declining to effect the sale on September 5, 2008, the closing date of the agreement. Roba filed an appeal at the court of appeal contesting the findings of the trial court.
Winner/looser
Winner: Roba
Exact winning or loss
Case Reversal
Appellant’s plea
Roba argues that the trial court incorrectly awarded...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
Other Topics:
- Ethical DilemmaDescription: The situation left me torn between two choices, and both choices had the possibility of causing severe negative consequences....5 pages/≈1375 words| No Sources | MLA | Law | Coursework |
- Tenants and Landlord Law In NewYorkDescription: Case study on landlord-tenant law and write a research paper on this topic. Also explore the procedure for eviction in New York State....1 page/≈275 words| 11 Sources | MLA | Law | Coursework |
- People v. KibbeDescription: The defendants, Barry and Roy Krall, met the victim, George Stafford, during the winter in a bar. In the course of their meeting, the defendants realized that Stafford was intoxicated and had lots of money...1 page/≈275 words| MLA | Law | Coursework |
