Attorney Auden Lewis Grumet's Legal Cases

Car accident

Smith v. Snyder

Sep 09, 1999

OUTCOME: Defense Verdict [I was counsel for defendant]

[As excerpted from Georgia Trial Reporter, Vol. 12, No. 2, Page 35 (2000), Case No. 97CV06719S1; Verdict Date: September 9, 1999]: Plaintiff and defendant were in their respective vehicles traveling ... west on highway 124 near its intersection with highway 78 in Snellville. Plaintiff had stopped at a stop sign and proceeded, then suddenly stopped again. Defendant rear-ended plaintiff when she stopped the second time. Plaintiff was involved in an accident prior to this, as well as two subsequent accidents. Plaintiff alleged that: (1) she was attempting to merge into traffic and was forced to stop a second time; (2) defendant failed to keep an assured, clear distance; and (3) she sustained significant injuries as a direct result of the accident. Defendant contended that: (1) she was presented with a sudden emergency when plaintiff stopped a second time; (2) plaintiff exaggerated her injuries; and (3) plaintiff's injuries were the result of another accident.

Car accident

Norman v. Boswell

Jun 01, 1998

OUTCOME: Defense Verdict [I was counsel for defendant]

[As excerpted from Georgia Trial Reporter, Vol. 10, No. 9, Page 16 (1998); Case No.: 96-VS-0117861-D; Verdict Date: June 1, 1998]: Plaintiff and defendant were traveling in the same direction on Old ... National Highway. Plaintiff was driving in the left lane and defendant was in the right lane. Plaintiff changed lanes suddenly, allegedly to avoid vehicles involved in an accident ahead in her lane of travel. Plaintiff and defendant collided. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in following too closely, resulting in the collision. Further, she suffered soft tissue back, left shoulder and chest injuries as a direct result of the accident. Defendant contended that plaintiff's negligence in changing lanes improperly was the proximate cause of the accident and that plaintiff was exaggerating the extent of her injuries. Jury Deliberations: 40 minutes.

Insurance

Atkinson v. Merchants Employee Benefits, et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending

Complex insurance coverage/contract case.

Construction and development

Delta Electric, Inc. v. Bottom of the Cup, et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Favorable Settlement

[Case was successfully transferred from Hall County Magistrate Court to Hall County Superior Court upon Plaintiff's motion]. Materialman/Construction Lien Foreclosure, with numerous unique and compl ... icated facts, particularly due to the fact that that the entity that hired the general contractor to perform the work at issue was not the owner of the property, but rather was a tenant of the landlord/owner, and so had no more than a leasehold interest therein. And the scenario was even further complicated by the fact that the true legal owner was not the same person as the landlord; thus we argued that the latter actually had no ownership interest to convey, rendering the lease null/void (at least insofar as our interests were concerned). This case involved the application of the general rule that ordinarily a lien claimant may not encumber the fee simple interest of the subject property when a tenant orders improvements of which the landlord has no knowledge [or only limited involvement], and the rather narrow exceptions to this general rule. For instance, in this particular case, in addition to the questionable validity of the lease itself, the work at issue began prior to the scheduled commencement date of the lease, and by its own terms the lease provided for rental credit to be given to the tenant by the landlord in conjunction with the improvements and contemplated the scope of work to be undertaken as between the landlord and tenant, etc. And there is authority to support the conclusion that the existence of one or more of these factors will give rise to an exception to the general rule so as to render the full fee simple interest in the property subject to the Claim of Lien.

Construction and development

Delta Electric, Inc. v. JEM Development et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Judgment for Plaintiff - for All Relief Sought

Materialman's Lien Foreclosure case [Gwinnett County Superior Court]. Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff against all Defendants on all counts as a result of Defendants' failure to comply with the D ... iscovery provisions of the Civil Practice Act. Damages hearing pending as of 11/02/09.

Auden Lewis Grumet's Legal Cases (25)

Smith v. Snyder

Norman v. Boswell

Atkinson v. Merchants Employee Benefits, et al.

Delta Electric, Inc. v. Bottom of the Cup, et al.

Delta Electric, Inc. v. JEM Development et al.