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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
JarAllah v. Schoengreen2 sentences2015Co. of Ga., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 361, 367 (4) ( 745 SE2d 306 ) (2013) (“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion *520 of the trial judge.” (punctuation omitted)); JarAllah v. Schoen, 243 Ga.App. 402, 406 ( 531 SE2d 778 ) (2000) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon summary judgment motion instead of granting continuance when appellant “did not demonstrate that a continuance would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence”). 2015Co. of Ga., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 361, 367 (4) ( 745 SE2d 306 ) (2013) (“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion *520 of the trial judge.” (punctuation omitted)); JarAllah v. Schoen, 243 Ga.App. 402, 406 ( 531 SE2d 778 ) (2000) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon summary judgment motion instead of granting continuance when appellant “did not demonstrate that a continuance would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence”). | 4 | 4 |
Sims v. First Acceptance Insurance Co. of Georgia, Inc.green2 sentences2015Co. of Ga., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 361, 367 (4) ( 745 SE2d 306 ) (2013) (“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion *520 of the trial judge.” (punctuation omitted)); JarAllah v. Schoen, 243 Ga.App. 402, 406 ( 531 SE2d 778 ) (2000) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon summary judgment motion instead of granting continuance when appellant “did not demonstrate that a continuance would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence”). 2015Co. of Ga., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 361, 367 (4) ( 745 SE2d 306 ) (2013) (“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion *520 of the trial judge.” (punctuation omitted)); JarAllah v. Schoen, 243 Ga.App. 402, 406 ( 531 SE2d 778 ) (2000) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling upon summary judgment motion instead of granting continuance when appellant “did not demonstrate that a continuance would lead to the discovery of relevant evidence”). | 1 | 1 |
Nationsbank, N.A. v. Southtrust Bank of Georgia, N.A.green2 sentences2000NationsBank, N.A. v. SouthTrust Bank &c., 226 Ga. App. 888, 895-896 (2) ( 487 SE2d 701 ). 2000NationsBank, N.A. v. SouthTrust Bank &c., 226 Ga. App. 888, 895-896 (2) ( 487 SE2d 701 ). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Scott USA, Ltd.green2 sentences1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. 1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Tara Ford, Inc.green2 sentences1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. 1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Gobergreen2 sentences1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. 1997Wilson v. Tara Ford, 200 Ga. App. 98, 101-102 (3) ( 406 SE2d 807 ) (1991); Hall v. Scott USA, 198 Ga. App. 197, 201-202 (3) ( 400 SE2d 700 ) (1990); Gray v. Gober, 185 Ga. App. 624, 627-628 (2) ( 365 SE2d 279 ) (1988); Herring v. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
BOWEN v. SAVOY
green
2 sentences2021“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Hernandez v. Schumacher Group Healthcare Consulting, 352 Ga. App. 838 , 845 (2) ( 835 SE2d 787 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted), disapproved in part on other grounds in Bowen v. Savoy, 308 Ga. 204 , 209 n. 7 ( 839 SE2d 546 ) (2020). 2021“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” Hernandez v. Schumacher Group Healthcare Consulting, 352 Ga. App. 838 , 845 (2) ( 835 SE2d 787 ) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted), disapproved in part on other grounds in Bowen v. Savoy, 308 Ga. 204 , 209 n. 7 ( 839 SE2d 546 ) (2020). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.