Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Swan v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). 2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). | 2 | 2 |
Gordon v. Gillespiegreen2 sentences2007Id. at 659-660; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 375 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975). 2007Id. at 659-660; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 375 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975). | 2 | 2 |
Rasheed v. KLOPP ENTERPRISES, INC.green2 sentences2020See Rasheed, supra; Morris, supra at 660 . 2018Delay cannot be the sole reason for a trial court to deny joinder, Western Sky Financial v. State of Ga. , 300 Ga. 340 , 358 (3) (a), 793 S.E.2d 357 (2016), and "when a plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment, set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Rasheed v. Klopp Enterprises , 276 Ga. App. 91 , 92 (1), 622 S.E.2d 442 (2005) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Dezso Benedek v. the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgiagreen2 sentences2023Sys. of Ga., 332 Ga. App. 573, 575 (1) (b) ( 774 SE2d 150 ) (2015). 2023Sys. of Ga., 332 Ga. App. 573, 575 (1) (b) ( 774 SE2d 150 ) (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Callaway v. Quinn.green1 sentence2023See also Callaway, 347 Ga. App. at 329 (2); Hennessy Cadillac v. Pippin, 197 Ga. App. 448, 449 ( 398 SE2d 725 ) (1990) (“When the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) are met, even the running of the statute of limitation does not control.”). 10 court to address the Gonzalezes’ motion to add Durham as a defendant under the standard in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) and applicable case law.17 If the trial court determines that the amended complaint relates back under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), it should then exercise its discretion as to whether to add Durham pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-21: “Parties may be . . . added | 1 | 1 |
Hennessy Cadillac v. Pippingreen2 sentences2023See also Callaway, 347 Ga. App. at 329 (2); Hennessy Cadillac v. Pippin, 197 Ga. App. 448, 449 ( 398 SE2d 725 ) (1990) (“When the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) are met, even the running of the statute of limitation does not control.”). 10 court to address the Gonzalezes’ motion to add Durham as a defendant under the standard in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) and applicable case law.17 If the trial court determines that the amended complaint relates back under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), it should then exercise its discretion as to whether to add Durham pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-21: “Parties may be . . . added 2023See also Callaway, 347 Ga. App. at 329 (2); Hennessy Cadillac v. Pippin, 197 Ga. App. 448, 449 ( 398 SE2d 725 ) (1990) (“When the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) are met, even the running of the statute of limitation does not control.”). 10 court to address the Gonzalezes’ motion to add Durham as a defendant under the standard in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) and applicable case law.17 If the trial court determines that the amended complaint relates back under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), it should then exercise its discretion as to whether to add Durham pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-21: “Parties may be . . . added | 1 | 1 |
Hobbs v. Arthurgreen2 sentences2021Cooper argues that, because a recommenced case envisioned by the renewal statute is an action de novo, Hobbs v. Arthur, 264 Ga. 359, 360 ( 444 SE2d 322 ) 10 (1994), he was permitted to file a renewal action under the circumstances present in this case. 2021Cooper argues that, because a recommenced case envisioned by the renewal statute is an action de novo, Hobbs v. Arthur, 264 Ga. 359, 360 ( 444 SE2d 322 ) 10 (1994), he was permitted to file a renewal action under the circumstances present in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Daniel & Daniel, Inc. v. Cosmopolitan Co.green2 sentences2009In Daniel & Daniel v. Cosmopolitan Co., 137 Ga. App. 383, 384 (1) ( 224 SE2d 44 ) (1976), we held that “venue may be perfected by the proper addition of a party defendant” so as to cure an existing problem with venue. 2009In Daniel & Daniel v. Cosmopolitan Co., 137 Ga. App. 383, 384 (1) ( 224 SE2d 44 ) (1976), we held that “venue may be perfected by the proper addition of a party defendant” so as to cure an existing problem with venue. | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2007Wright, 262 Ga. at 845, n. 1 , 426 S.E.2d 870 . 2007Wright, 262 Ga. at 845, n. 1 .1 respectfully dissent. | 1 | 1 |
Rich's, Inc. v. Snydergreen2 sentences2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). 2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). | 1 | 1 |
Tanner's Rome, Inc. v. Ingramgreen2 sentences2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). 2000See also Rich’s, Inc. v. Snyder, 134 Ga. App. 889, 891-892 (1) ( 216 SE2d 648 ) (1975). 9 See Swan v. Johnson, 219 Ga. App. 450, 451 (1) ( 465 SE2d 684 ) (1995) (relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) not satisfied where it was unclear how any mistake could have been made as to individual’s identity as actual or potential party to the litigation). 10 Compare Tanner’s Rome, Inc. v. Ingram, 236 Ga. App. 275, 276 ( 511 SE2d 617 ) (1999) (sister corporation of original defendant admitted that it knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it). | 1 | 1 |
Harper v. Mayor &C. of Savannahgreen2 sentences1997“When a complaint shows on its face that the statute of limitation has run and there is no further showing by amendment or by affidavit that a tolling of the statute is possible, a motion to dismiss the barred claims properly is granted.” (Citations and punctua *402 tion omitted.) Harper v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 190 Ga. App. 637, 638 ( 380 SE2d 78 ) (1989). 1997“When a complaint shows on its face that the statute of limitation has run and there is no further showing by amendment or by affidavit that a tolling of the statute is possible, a motion to dismiss the barred claims properly is granted.” (Citations and punctua *402 tion omitted.) Harper v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 190 Ga. App. 637, 638 ( 380 SE2d 78 ) (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc.green2 sentences1997Harper, supra at 638 ; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 377 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975); Sargent v. Dept. of Human Resources, 202 Ga. App. 874, 875 ( 415 SE2d 918 ) (1992); Morris v. Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 222 Ga. App. 62, 64 ( 473 SE2d 501 ) (1996). 1997Harper, supra at 638 ; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 377 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975); Sargent v. Dept. of Human Resources, 202 Ga. App. 874, 875 ( 415 SE2d 918 ) (1992); Morris v. Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 222 Ga. App. 62, 64 ( 473 SE2d 501 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Sargent v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences1997Harper, supra at 638 ; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 377 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975); Sargent v. Dept. of Human Resources, 202 Ga. App. 874, 875 ( 415 SE2d 918 ) (1992); Morris v. Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 222 Ga. App. 62, 64 ( 473 SE2d 501 ) (1996). 1997Harper, supra at 638 ; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga. App. 369, 377 ( 217 SE2d 628 ) (1975); Sargent v. Dept. of Human Resources, 202 Ga. App. 874, 875 ( 415 SE2d 918 ) (1992); Morris v. Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 222 Ga. App. 62, 64 ( 473 SE2d 501 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Piggly Wiggly of Calhoun, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Cobb, supra at 651 ; Bailey v. Kemper Group, 182 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 ( 356 SE2d 695 ) (1987); compare Robinson v. Piggly Wiggly of Calhoun, 193 Ga. App. 675 ( 388 SE2d 754 ) (1989). 1993See Cobb, supra at 651 ; Bailey v. Kemper Group, 182 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 ( 356 SE2d 695 ) (1987); compare Robinson v. Piggly Wiggly of Calhoun, 193 Ga. App. 675 ( 388 SE2d 754 ) (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Kemper Groupgreen2 sentences1993See Cobb, supra at 651 ; Bailey v. Kemper Group, 182 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 ( 356 SE2d 695 ) (1987); compare Robinson v. Piggly Wiggly of Calhoun, 193 Ga. App. 675 ( 388 SE2d 754 ) (1989). 1993See Cobb, supra at 651 ; Bailey v. Kemper Group, 182 Ga. App. 604, 606-607 ( 356 SE2d 695 ) (1987); compare Robinson v. Piggly Wiggly of Calhoun, 193 Ga. App. 675 ( 388 SE2d 754 ) (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Bohannon v. Futrellgreen2 sentences1991Despite what is said in Bohannon v. Futrell, 189 Ga. App. 340, 343 (2) ( 375 SE2d 637 ) (1988), regarding the relation back rule of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), that rule does not apply. 1991Despite what is said in Bohannon v. Futrell, 189 Ga. App. 340, 343 (2) ( 375 SE2d 637 ) (1988), regarding the relation back rule of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), that rule does not apply. | 1 | 1 |
Horne v. Carswellgreen2 sentences1987Horne v. Carswell, 167 Ga. App. 229, 230 ( 306 SE2d 94 ) (1983). 1987Horne v. Carswell, 167 Ga. App. 229, 230 ( 306 SE2d 94 ) (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ANDREW KUNKEL v. JAMES R. HILLMAN, JR.
green
2 sentences2024H., 314 Ga. App. 185 , 187, n. 3 ( 723 SE2d 478 ) (2012), citing Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 7 (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Kunkel v. Hillman, 372 Ga. App. 250 , 252 (1) ( 904 SE2d 91 ) (2024). 7 plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment [filed after the statute of limitation], set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”8 The relation-back requirements in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provide: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in 2024H., 314 Ga. App. 185 , 187, n. 3 ( 723 SE2d 478 ) (2012), citing Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 7 (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Kunkel v. Hillman, 372 Ga. App. 250 , 252 (1) ( 904 SE2d 91 ) (2024). 7 plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment [filed after the statute of limitation], set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”8 The relation-back requirements in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provide: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Wlh
green
2 sentences2024H., 314 Ga. App. 185 , 187, n. 3 ( 723 SE2d 478 ) (2012), citing Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 7 (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Kunkel v. Hillman, 372 Ga. App. 250 , 252 (1) ( 904 SE2d 91 ) (2024). 7 plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment [filed after the statute of limitation], set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”8 The relation-back requirements in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provide: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in 2024H., 314 Ga. App. 185 , 187, n. 3 ( 723 SE2d 478 ) (2012), citing Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 7 (Citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted.) Kunkel v. Hillman, 372 Ga. App. 250 , 252 (1) ( 904 SE2d 91 ) (2024). 7 plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment [filed after the statute of limitation], set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”8 The relation-back requirements in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provide: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Walter Robinson v. the Estate of Walter Jester
green
2 sentences2018To relate back, OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) requires both that the claim against a new party "arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original *330 pleading" and that the new party, within the relevant limitation period, "(1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him." See Robinson v. Estate of Jester , 333 Ga. App. 41 , 43, 775 S.E.2 2018To relate back, OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) requires both that the claim against a new party "arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original *330 pleading" and that the new party, within the relevant limitation period, "(1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him." See Robinson v. Estate of Jester , 333 Ga. App. 41 , 43, 775 S.E.2 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Western Sky Financial, LLC v. State
green
2 sentences2018Delay cannot be the sole reason for a trial court to deny joinder, Western Sky Financial v. State of Ga. , 300 Ga. 340 , 358 (3) (a), 793 S.E.2d 357 (2016), and "when a plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment, set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Rasheed v. Klopp Enterprises , 276 Ga. App. 91 , 92 (1), 622 S.E.2d 442 (2005) (citation omitted). 2018Delay cannot be the sole reason for a trial court to deny joinder, Western Sky Financial v. State of Ga. , 300 Ga. 340 , 358 (3) (a), 793 S.E.2d 357 (2016), and "when a plaintiff can satisfy the statutory requirements for relation back of an amendment, set out in OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a defendant is an abuse of the trial court's discretion." Rasheed v. Klopp Enterprises , 276 Ga. App. 91 , 92 (1), 622 S.E.2d 442 (2005) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Utica Mutual Insurance v. Chasen
neutral
2 sentences2018Co. v. Chasen , 195 Ga. App. 875 , 876-878, 395 S.E.2d 40 (1990) (applying OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) relation-back analysis where plaintiff sought to add John Doe defendant after running of statute of limitation). 2018Co. v. Chasen , 195 Ga. App. 875 , 876-878, 395 S.E.2d 40 (1990) (applying OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) relation-back analysis where plaintiff sought to add John Doe defendant after running of statute of limitation). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Deleo v. Mid-Towne Home Infusion, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008To invoke the relation-back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), three conditions must be met: (1) the amendment adding the new defendant must arise out of the same facts as the original complaint; (2) the new defendant must have had sufficient notice of the lawsuit; and (3) the new defendant must have known, or should have known, that but for a mistake in identifying him as the proper party, the *778 action would have been brought against him. 2 See Deleo, 244 Ga. App. at 684 . 2008To invoke the relation-back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), three conditions must be met: (1) the amendment adding the new defendant must arise out of the same facts as the original complaint; (2) the new defendant must have had sufficient notice of the lawsuit; and (3) the new defendant must have known, or should have known, that but for a mistake in identifying him as the proper party, the *778 action would have been brought against him. 2 See Deleo, 244 Ga. App. at 684 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Morris v. Chewning
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 659-660, 411 S.E.2d 891 ; Gordon v. Gillespie, 135 Ga.App. 369, 375 , 217 S.E.2d 628 (1975). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rojas v. State
green
2 sentences1998In Rojas v. State of Ga., 269 Ga. 121 ( 498 SE2d 735 ) (1998), the Supreme Court of Georgia has recently concluded that under OCGA § 9-11-81, the amendment provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 of the Civil Practice Act, including the relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), apply to forfeiture proceedings. 1998In Rojas v. State of Ga., 269 Ga. 121 ( 498 SE2d 735 ) (1998), the Supreme Court of Georgia has recently concluded that under OCGA § 9-11-81, the amendment provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 of the Civil Practice Act, including the relation back provisions of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), apply to forfeiture proceedings. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Rose v. Kosilla
neutral
1 sentence1988Rose v. Kosilla, supra; Commercial Union Ins. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
A. H. Robins Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1988Robins Co. v. Sullivan, 136 Ga. App. 533 ( 221 SE2d 697 ) (1975), this court held that the addition of a new party who is altogether a stranger to the original suit is not contemplated by the relation back provision of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c). 1988Robins Co. v. Sullivan, 136 Ga. App. 533 ( 221 SE2d 697 ) (1975), this court held that the addition of a new party who is altogether a stranger to the original suit is not contemplated by the relation back provision of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.