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.
8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Islamkhan v. Khangreen2 sentences2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). 2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). | 3 | 3 |
SOTTER v. Stephensgreen2 sentences2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). 2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). | 3 | 3 |
Srm Group, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of Americagreen2 sentences2025Casualty Co. of America, 308 Ga. 404, 410 (841 SE2d 729) (2020) (holding that party was entitled to seek attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 based on claim for breach of contract asserted in counterclaim); Traders’ Ins. 2025Casualty Co. of America, 308 Ga. 404, 410 (841 SE2d 729) (2020) (holding that party was entitled to seek attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 based on claim for breach of contract asserted in counterclaim); Traders’ Ins. | 1 | 1 |
City of Lilburn v. Astra Group, Inc.green2 sentences2025City of Lilburn v. Astra Group, 286 Ga. App. 568, 570 ( 649 SE2d 813 ) (2007) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2025City of Lilburn v. Astra Group, 286 Ga. App. 568, 570 ( 649 SE2d 813 ) (2007) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
SPRING LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Peacockgreen2 sentences2019Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Peacock, 260 Ga. 80, 81 ( 390 SE2d 31 ) (1990) (holding that there was some evidence to support a jury award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 when the appellant built a gate that obstructed the appellees’ easement and “[t]he failure of appellant to admit its mistake and remove the obstruction across appellees’ easement showed stubborn litigiousness”); Ins. 2019Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Peacock, 260 Ga. 80, 81 ( 390 SE2d 31 ) (1990) (holding that there was some evidence to support a jury award of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 when the appellant built a gate that obstructed the appellees’ easement and “[t]he failure of appellant to admit its mistake and remove the obstruction across appellees’ easement showed stubborn litigiousness”); Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards-Warren Tire Co. v. Coblegreen2 sentences2013It is longstanding law that a party may recover attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 “[i]f the breach of [a] contract, which is the cause of action, is colored or poisoned by bad faith.” Edwards-Warren Tire Co. v. Coble, 102 Ga. App. 106, 114 ( 115 SE2d 852 ) (1960). 2013It is longstanding law that a party may recover attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11 “[i]f the breach of [a] contract, which is the cause of action, is colored or poisoned by bad faith.” Edwards-Warren Tire Co. v. Coble, 102 Ga. App. 106, 114 ( 115 SE2d 852 ) (1960). | 1 | 1 |
Ring v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2012See Ring v. Williams, 192 Ga. App. 329, 331 (3) ( 384 SE2d 914 ) (1989). 2012See Ring v. Williams, 192 Ga. App. 329, 331 (3) ( 384 SE2d 914 ) (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Traders Insurance v. Mann
green
2 sentences2025Co. v. Mann, 118 Ga. 381, 381 385-386 (45 SE 426) (1903) (construing predecessor to OCGA § 13-6-11, describing conduct that could constitute bad faith in an action on an insurance policy, and holding that a mere refusal to pay does not constitute bad faith). 7 estate would demonstrate that the defendants acted in bad faith sufficient to authorize the recovery of litigation expenses under a predecessor to OCGA § 13-6-11. 2025Co. v. Mann, 118 Ga. 381, 381 385-386 (45 SE 426) (1903) (construing predecessor to OCGA § 13-6-11, describing conduct that could constitute bad faith in an action on an insurance policy, and holding that a mere refusal to pay does not constitute bad faith). 7 estate would demonstrate that the defendants acted in bad faith sufficient to authorize the recovery of litigation expenses under a predecessor to OCGA § 13-6-11. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.