Lewis v. Uselton (1992)
green
· 46 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 13 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199220092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
In re Estate of McKitrick (2014)
In looking to the rules of contract construction set forth in OCGA § 13-2-2 to resolve the ambiguity, and pursuant to OCGA § 13-2-2 (5) specifically, as the preceding rules provide us no resolution, “as judicially interpreted, where the construction of a contract is doubtful, the construction that goes most strongly against the drafter of the agreement is to be preferred.” Reichman, supra, 266 Ga. App. at 699-700 (1); see Dept. of Community Health v. Pruitt Corp., 295 Ga. Ap…
“An ambiguous provision in a contract is construed most strongly against its maker .... The provision in this contract must be construed most strongly against the attorney who proposed it.”
green
In Re: Estate of Lorraine McKitrick (2014)
The fee provision is therefore ambiguous as it is open to more than one interpretation.2 See Shepherd v. Greer, Klosic & Daugherty, ___ Ga. App. ___ ( 750 SE2d 463 ) (2013) (ambiguity means “duplicity, indistinctness, an uncertainty of meaning or expression used in a written instrument, and it also signifies being open to various interpretation.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)). 2 It is also unclear as to whether the counsel’s retainer fee “to try and cover the case th…
“An ambiguous provision in a contract is construed most strongly against its maker . . . .The provision in this contract must be construed most strongly against the attorney who proposed it.”
green
Lewis v. Uselton (1997)
Lewis, 202 Ga. App. at 881 (5). 1 Thereafter, a jury tried the case in trifurcated form.
5
green
Advanced Technology Services, Inc. v. Km Docs, LLC (2014)
See, e.g., Dept. of Community Health v. Pruitt Corp., 295 Ga. App. 629, 633 ( 673 SE2d 36 ) (2009) (construing change of ownership provision in Medicaid-reimbursement agreement and policy manual included therein against the drafter to determine meaning of a certain provision); Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 779-880 (3) ( 416 SE2d 94 ) (1992) (construing provision in contract most strongly against attorney who drafted it).
green
Advanced Technology Services, Inc. v. KM Docs, LLC (2014)
See, e.g., Dept. of Community Health v. Pruitt Corp., 295 Ga. App. 629, 633 ( 673 SE2d 36 ) (2009) (construingchange of ownership provision in Medicaid-reimbursement agreement and policy manual included therein against the drafter to determine meaning of a certain provision); Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 879-880 (3) ( 416 SE2d 94 ) (1992) (construing provision in contract most strongly against attorney who drafted it).
green
Lewis v. Smith (2005)
If [the attorney] violates [this] instruction ... he forfeits all right to compensation.” Rogers v. Pettigrew, 138 Ga. 528, 529 ( 75 SE 631 ) (1912); Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 876 (1) ( 416 SE2d 94 ) (1992).
green
Green v. Lanford (1996)
In reliance on Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 876 (1) ( 416 SE2d 94 ) (1992), and Addley v. Beizer, 205 Ga. App. 714, 715 (1) ( 423 SE2d 398 ) (1992), Green argues that Brumbelow does not entitle Lanford to summary judgment.
green
Pembroke State Bank v. Warnell (1995)
Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 878 ( 416 SE2d 94 ).
green
Lord v. Money Masters, Inc. (1993)
Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875, 879 ( 416 SE2d 94 ), cert. denied.
green
Urim Corporation v. Steven L. Krongold (2008)
See Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga.App. 875 , 416 S.E.2d 94, 96-98 (1992).
green
Clark v. Perino (1998)
See Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875 ( 416 SE2d 94 ) (1992); Vandiver v. McFarland, 179 Ga. App. 411 ( 346 SE2d 854 ) (1986).
green
Addley v. Beizer (1992)
See Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. 875 ( 416 SE2d 94 ), cert. denied; Vandiver v. McFarland, supra at 413; 30 ALR 944 , 945; 7 AmJur2d, § 156; and 7A CJS, § 214.
green
Matter of Lewis (1995)
See Lewis v. Uselton, 202 Ga. App. at 880 .