Campus News

Georgia Court of Appeals to hear arguments at UGA

The UGA School of Law will host the Georgia Court of Appeals Oct. 14 in its Hatton Lovejoy Courtroom.

The court will hear oral arguments on three cases involving medical negligence, sovereign immunity and aggravated assault. The proceedings will begin at 10:30 a.m. A question-and-answer session with Court of Appeals judges will follow the arguments. The event is open free to the public.

The bench will be comprised of Presiding Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes, Judge William M. Ray II and Judge Carla Wong McMillian. All three are graduates of Georgia Law. The last time the Court of Appeals held oral arguments at Georgia Law was in 2007.

Georgia Law Dean Peter B. “Bo” Rutledge said having the court hear arguments at the law school benefits students greatly.

“This unique opportunity to witness firsthand Court of Appeals proceedings will offer our students a front-and-center view into the legal system that will assist them as they move forward with their education and careers,” he said. “It is also a tremendous opportunity for the public at large to see the Georgia Court of Appeals in action.”

The following cases will be heard: R. Robles, Individually and as surviving spouse and Administrator of Estate of Iselda Moreno v. P. Yugueros, M.D. and Artisan Plastic Surgery, LLC (medical negligence); Raw Properties, Inc. v. C. Lawson, Tax Commissioner and ex-officio Sheriff of DeKalb County, and DeKalb County, Georgia (sovereign immunity); and M. Williams v. State (aggravated assault).

In Robles, Rudy Robles is appealing a court decision that found a surgeon not responsible for the death of his wife after a “tummy tuck” surgery. The case argues that a surgeon failed to recognize that the patient had an acute abdominal process, which the appellant asserts led to her death.

In Raw, the real estate company is appealing a court decision that found a tax commissioner was entitled to sovereign immunity against damage claims stemming from a sale of RPI’s real property, which the company alleges was wrongfully sold for taxes after statutory procedures were not followed.

In Williams, the appellant is appealing a court decision that refused Williams a new trial after he was found guilty of aggravated assault. In the case, the victims of the assault initially identified Williams as a shooter but later recanted at trial. The state claims the recantations resulted from threats against the witnesses.

Written briefs of each case are at