[SvenMagnussen]

Hatfield commentary on appeal.

Notes for appeal:

Appellate review, based as it is upon the written record assembled at the trial level, is often deferential, particularly with regard to discretionary trial management decisions, issues heavily intertwined with fact and testimonial credibility, and the trier of fact's determination of guilt. Review of the trial court's elaboration of legal standards is generally de novo, and many jurisdictions also review de novo the application of constitutional or other legal standards to the facts (e.g., Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)).

When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the “plain legal error” standard of review.  Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga.App. 40, 45(3), 510 S.E.2d 895 (1999).   Moreover, “[w]here it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm.  [Cit.]” Gwinnett County v. Davis, 268 Ga. 653, 655, 492 S.E.2d 523 (1997).   This is such a case.   See Wood v. Dan P. Holl & Co., 169 Ga.App. 839, 841(2), 315 S.E.2d 51 (1984).

[nd76]

Also, in administrative hearings, the presiding officer is obligated to base his decisions upon “substantial evidence on the whole record”. If the decision is not based on such substantial evidence on the whole record, the decision is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and is required to be reversed.

[SatinDoll]

“Me thinks that Malihi is well aware his ruling is not going to stand. The appeal will shred his decision.” (Danae)

Thanks for the information, Sven.

All through the past three years there have been judicial decisions wrought with errors. Leo Donofrio has been picking those out, highlighting them, like breadcrumbs along a trail. One suspects the decisions to have been done purposefully in an effort to propel this issue to SCOTUS.