defect — some sort of “[deviation from a legal rule” — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant. Second, the legal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute. Third, the error must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must demonstrate that it “affected the outcome of the [trial] court proceedings.” Fourth and finally, if the above three prongs are satisfied, the [appellate court] has the discretion to remedy the error — discretion which ought to be exercised only if the error “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Kelly, 290 Ga. at 33. See also Gates, 298 Ga. at 327 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, beyond showing a clear or
holding without comment that kelly applies to restitution paid to a victim bank recognizing that this test applies in every federal circuit save the fourth and the ninth holding restitution paid to a local department store is not dischargeable pursuant to kelly holding that if no evidence was presented to support the prevailing party there is no evidence upon which to apply the substantial evidence test and therefore the capricious disregard standard applies recognizing that the test adopted in kelly applies to rulings on evidence