[Seizethecarp]

I trust that you are posting these two case law quotes because they support what I said...that being that an appeals court can only review conclusions of law, not findings of fact, unless the trial court (Malihi) made a “clearly erroneous” finding of fact. Malihi did not, IMO, and the appeals courts give extreme deference to the judge who was in the courtroom and personally assessed the credibility of the witnesses and testimony, which the appeals court can only indirectly perceive from the record.

Your quotes affirm that the appeals court will only review de novo (from scratch) the conclusions of law, and they own no deference to the trial judge (Malihi) in applying the law to the facts that the trial court found.

[SvenMagnussen]

Malihi did make an error after he issued a pre-trial Order for Defendant to prove his eligibility to Plaintiff. The appropriate adjudication, regardless of Plaintiff’s request to hear the case on the merits, was to issue a Default Judgment against Defendant for not showing and proving himself eligible to Plaintiffs.

In the Farrar case, Malihi issued a Summary Judgment for Defendant after no opposition of was offered to Plaintiff, Farrar, taking the stand and identifying himself as GA voter who objected to Ballot placement of the Defendant.

Summary Judgment in civil suits is reveiwable, de novo.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 - Summary judgment

(h) Appeal. An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.