Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 278 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. 1981). · Go Syfert
Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 278 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
86 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clawson v. Intercat, Inc. (gactapp, 2008-10-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clawson v. Intercat, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co.
Ga. · 2002 · confidence medium
Thus, “[o]nly supporting material which is ‘on file’ at least 30 days before the hearing shall be considered for the movant.” Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orrel v. Amerada Hess Corp.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981), and the trial court did not err in considering the affidavits.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Custom Lighting & Decorating, Ltd. v. Hampshire Co.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Shaw
Ga. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Connell v. Houser
Ga. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bonds v. John Wieland Homes, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981), the Supreme Court held that “Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) [now OCGA § 9-11-56 (c)] requires that only supporting material which is ‘on file’ at least 30 days before the hearing shall be considered for the movant.” The Court went on to explain: “The intention of the statute may appear rigid at first blush but Code Ann. § 81A-106 (b) [now OCGA § 9-11-6 (b)] and § 81A-106 (d) [now OCGA § 9-11-6 (d)] provide flexibility by authorizing the trial judge, or the parties by stipulation, to extend the filing times.” Id. at 632.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Suttle v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Co., 157 Ga. App. 448 (1) ( 278 SE2d 40 ); Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel &c Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ). (b) .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pierce v. Gaskins
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ); Benton Bros.
discussed Cited "see" Outfront Media, LLC v. City of Sandy Springs (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & 11 The supplemental affidavit was filed on December 14, 2018, and the hearing was conducted on December 19, 2018. 21 Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 (3) ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981) (requirement that summary judgment movant file supporting materials at least 30 days before hearing “does not preclude a finding of harmless error, waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of supporting material not timely filed”).
examined Cited "see" Carl Blake v. Kes, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981) (failure to meet time requirement “does not preclude a finding of harmless error, waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of supporting material not timely filed”); Suttle v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 171 Ga. App. 928, 932 (2) (c) ( 321 SE2d 424 ) (1984) (“This court has consistently reached a finding of waiver where no objection was made to the late filing of an affidavit – whether the affidavit was in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for…
examined Cited "see" Blake v. KES, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981) (failure to meet time requirement “does not preclude a finding of harmless error, waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of supporting material not timely filed”); Suttle v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 171 Ga. App. 928, 932 (2) (c) ( 321 SE2d 424 ) (1984) (“This court has consistently reached a finding of waiver where no objection was made to the late filing of an affidavit - whether the affidavit was in support of, or in opposition to, a motion for s…
discussed Cited "see" Nathaniel Garner v. US Bank National Association (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel and Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 631-632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981); Gunter v. Hamilton Bank of Upper East Tennessee, 201 Ga. App. 379, 381 ( 411 SE2d 115 ) (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Garner v. US Bank National Ass'n (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 631-632 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981); Gunter v. Hamilton Bank of Upper East Tennessee, 201 Ga. App. 379, 381 ( 411 SE2d 115 ) (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Corry v. Robinson (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
discussed Cited "see" Lend Lease Trucks, Inc. v. TRW, INC. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jeffrey S. Leeper v. Safebuilt Georgia, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See e.g., Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 631 ( 278 SE2d 377 ) (1981) (observing that OCGA § 9-11-6 (b) (then codified at Code Ann. § 81A-106 (b)) authorized a trial judge to extend filing times, notwithstanding the apparently “rigid” deadlines for summary judgment filings under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (then codified at Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c))); accord Eagle West, LLC v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 312 Ga. App. 882, 888 ( 720 SE2d 317 ) (2011) (“[P]articular words of statutes are not interpreted in isolation; instead, courts must construe a statute to give sensible an…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Department of Human Resources v. Phillips (2×)
Ga. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Moore v. Candler General Hosp., 185 Ga.App. 280 , 363 S.E.2d 793 (1987). [27] See, e.g., Wood v. Food Giant, Inc., 183 Ga. App. 604 , 359 S.E.2d 410 (1987). [28] We also note that no objection was raised to the giving of this charge. [29] See Black v. Johnson, 233 Ga. 533 , 212 S.E.2d 368 (1975). [30] Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632 , 278 S.E.2d 377 (1981); Pressley v. Jennings, 227 Ga. 366, 376 , 180 S.E.2d 896 (1971). [31] The pretrial order stated: Under the State Tort Claims Act OCGA § 50-12-29, the maximum amount of damages is $1,000,000.00, and if …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PORTER COATINGS
v.
STEIN STEEL & SUPPLY COMPANY Et Al.
37355.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 26, 1981.
278 S.E.2d 377
1981 Ga. LEXIS 820
Richard T. de Mayo, for appellant., Curtis W. Martin, Robert D. Marshall, for appellees.
Undercofler.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published
Undercofler, Justice.

This is a certiorari to the Court of Appeals. [1] It was granted for two reasons. First to determine, “Whether there should be a different rule — as to the filing deadlines for materials supporting and opposing motions for summary judgment — with respect to depositions and other materials of which the opposite party had notice or knowledge, than as to affidavits and other materials of which the opposite party had no notice or knowledge.” Second, “The validity of Division 1 of Benton Bros. Ford Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co., 157 Ga. App. 448 (1981) in light of the above issue.”

Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) provides, “The motion [summary judgment] shall be served at least 30 days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of the hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; ...”

A motion for summary judgment is a vehicle for disposing of a controversy without the necessity of a trial. It is, as the description shows, a summary disposition of the issues in order to efficiently resolve litigation. Nevertheless, due process requires that the respondent not be surprised; rather, that he be given reasonable opportunity to refute the movant’s showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Therefore, the procedure is designed to give the opposing party fair opportunity to contradict the supporting material relied upon by the movant. Accordingly, we conclude that[*632] Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) requires that only supporting material which is “on file” at least 30 days before the hearing shall be considered for the movant. The intention of the statute may appear rigid at first blush but Code Ann. § 81A-106 (b) and § 81A-106 (d) provide flexibility by authorizing the trial judge, or the parties by stipulation, to extend the filing times. We approve the holding in Division 1 of Benton Bros. Ford Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co., 157 Ga. App. 448 (1981). We disapprove the holding to the contrary in Division 1 of the instant case.

Decided May 26, 1981. Richard T. de Mayo, for appellant. Curtis W. Martin, Robert D. Marshall, for appellees.

The conclusion reached here does not preclude a finding of harmless error, waiver, estoppel, or acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of supporting material not timely filed. In the present case, respondent-appellant, who complains the trial court erred in considering a deposition not timely filed, relied on the deposition to oppose the motion for summary judgment. Thus, we find no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
1

Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 157 Ga. App. 260 (277 SE2d 272) (1981).