Blackwell v. Sutton, 404 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Blackwell v. Sutton, 404 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2013–2026 · …a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment. ✓ Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2012–2013 · …a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to correct an erroneous grant of summary judgment. ✓
49 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cate T. Hollifield v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N. A. (gactapp, 2026-02-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Cate T. Hollifield v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N. A. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jeremiah Anderson v. Fitness International, LLC (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kimberly L. Tuopaeh v. National Collegiate Sudent Loan Trust 2006-2 (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) John Taylor v. Blackstone Residential Operating Partnership, Lp (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) William R. Anderson v. Bank of America, N.A. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Nihad Al Jaberi v. Md Anisur Rahman (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) MEDTECH, INC. v. NELSON Et Al. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
amotion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) William E. Parker v. Pinetree Country Club Condo Association (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to correct an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Jionel E. Pierre v. Rbs Citizens, N.A. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to correct an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Cindy Lesman v. Robert W. Law (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) In Re: Estate of Harriett Grey Nesbitt (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to correct an erroneous grant of summary judgment.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Robbin E. Smith v. Discover Bank (3×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
And “[a] motion for new trial, by its very nature, [does] not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.” Blackwell, 261 Ga. at 284, n. 1 .
discussed Cited "see" Parker v. Robinson (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284 ( 404 SE2d 114 ) (1991); Masters v. Clark, 269 Ga. App. 537, 539 ( 604 SE2d 556 ) (2004). 6 It is unnecessary for us to decide whether Parker’s motion could be properly construed as a motion to set aside because, in either event, our jurisdiction is lacking.
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest Of: T. N., a Child (Mother) (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284 ( 404 SE2d 114 ) (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Lance Carter v. Felicia Peeples (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284 ( 404 SE2d 114 ) (1991).
discussed Cited "see" Lance Carter v. Felicia Peeples (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284 ( 404 SE2d 114 ) (1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jenkins v. Butts County School District (2×)
M.D. Ga. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38; see also Blackwell v. Sutton, 261 Ga. 284, 284 , 404 S.E.2d 114, 114 (1991) (citation omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BLACKWELL
v.
SUTTON Et Al.
S91A0568.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 10, 1991.
404 S.E.2d 114
William W. Woody, for appellant., Larry Fowler, B. Dean Grindle, Jr., for appellees.
Hunt.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 10 cases
Pinpoint authority: #5,716 of 633,719
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (10)
Hunt, Justice.

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Blackwell against Sutton for ejectment. Sutton filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment, and granted. Blackwell filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court properly treated as a motion for reconsideration, [1] and denied. Blackwell appeals, contending the grant of summary judgment was improper. A motion for reconsideration, unlike those for new trial, in arrest of judgment, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, does not toll the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal. Adamson v. Adamson, 226 Ga. 719 (177 SE2d 241) (1970). Accordingly, Blackwell’s notice of appeal, filed more than 30 days after the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Sutton, was untimely, and his appeal is dismissed. See also Mathis v. Hegwood, 169 Ga. App 547 (314 SE2d 122) (1984).

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
1

Although Blackwell’s motion was titled one for new trial, his request was for a reconsideration on Sutton’s motion to dismiss. None of the grounds routinely associated with a motion for new trial is included. A motion for new trial, by its very nature, would not lie to rectify an erroneous grant of summary judgment.