How cited: Krogh v. PARGAR, LLC · Go Syfert

Krogh v. PARGAR, LLC (2005)

green · 45 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 17 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200620162026
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga.App. 35 , 625 S.E.2d 435, 440 (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Bd. of Ed. v. McIntosh, 326 Ga. App. 408, 413 ( 756 SE2d 641 ) (2014) (recognizing a “principle of construction (applicable to statutes and contracts alike), ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius,’ or ‘[t]he express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another’”) (punctuation omitted)); Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005) (same). 98 See supra note 93 & accompanying text ; see also Carnett’s Props., LLC v. Jowayne, LLC, 331 Ga. App.…
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
And as a principle of construction (applicable to statutes and contracts alike), “[e]xpressio unius est exclusio alterius,” or “[t]he express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.” 13 Indeed, a comparison of the express requirements of the written statement of charges and McIntosh’s obligation to merely set forth his “contentions” in response thereto indicates that the parties did not intend to place an equivalent explanatory 13 Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga.…
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005) (punctuation omitted); see also Bailey v. Lumpkin, 1 Ga. 392, 403-04 (1846) (“The maxim ‘expressio unius est, exclusio alterius,’ the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, is frequently quoted in our courts ....
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
See OCGA § 13-2-2 (1); Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
See OCGA § 13-2-2 (1); Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
OCGA § 13-2-2 (1).” Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
OCGA § 13-2-2 (1).” Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 38 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005) (citation and punctuation omitted).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 38 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Co., 261 Ga. App. 436, 439 (2) ( 582 SE2d 495 ) (2003). 7 Grier v. Brogdon, 234 Ga. App. 79, 80 (1) ( 505 SE2d 512 ) (1998). 8 Panfel v. Boyd, 187 Ga. App. 639, 645 (3) ( 371 SE2d 222 ) (1988). 9 Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 37 (1) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
green Hardnett v. Ogundele (2008)
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Svcs., 288 Ga. App. 718, 719 ( 655 SE2d 316 ) (2007). 2 Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 37-38 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005). 3 Kreimer v. Kreimer, 274 Ga. 359, 363 (2) ( 552 SE2d 826 ) (2001). 4 Nat.
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1) ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997). 2 Woody’s Steaks, LLC v. Pastoría, 261 Ga. App. 815, 817 ( 584 SE2d 41 ) (2003). 3 Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 38 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005). 4 In re Estate of Sims, 259 Ga. App. 786, 790 (1) ( 578 SE2d 498 ) (2003). 5 Berryhill v. Ga. Community Support &c., 281 Ga. 439, 441 ( 638 SE2d 278 ) (2006). 6 West v. Austin, 274 Ga. App. 729, 730 ( 618 SE2d 662 ) (2005). 7 Hendon Properties v. Cinema Dev., 275 Ga. App.…
Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.
Dept., 125 Ga. App. 591, 593 (1) ( 188 SE2d 405 ) (1972). 13 Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 39 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005). 14 Tymshare, Inc. v. Covell, 727 F2d 1145, 1153-1154 (III) (D.C.
Cited · 10th Cir. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Krogh v. Pargar, LLC, 277 Ga.App. 35 , 625 S.E.2d 435, 439 (2005). 14 .
Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see · 7 citations in this opinion
See Krogh v. Porgar, LLC, 277 Ga. App. 35, 37 (2) ( 625 SE2d 435 ) (2005).
Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Krogh, 277 Ga. App. at 39-40 (2). 4 See OCGA § 13-2-2. 5 RR Funding also questioned whether a transfer of any type of interest had been effectuated.
2