de novo standard in Georgia

2018Id. at 804 , 750 S.E.2d 148 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Despite these principles, in determining that a de novo standard of review was appropriate, the Court of Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Vansant v. State , 264 Ga. 319 , 320 (1), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994).

2018Id. at 804 , 750 S.E.2d 148 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Despite these principles, in determining that a de novo standard of review was appropriate, the Court of Appeals cited this Court's opinion in Vansant v. State , 264 Ga. 319 , 320 (1), 443 S.E.2d 474 (1994).

2008Rice v. Huff, 221 Ga. App. 592, 592-593 ( 472 SE2d 140 ) (1996).

2008Rice v. Huff, 221 Ga. App. 592, 592-593 ( 472 SE2d 140 ) (1996).

2021Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468, 470 ( 629 SE2d 204 ) (2006).

2021Benton v. Benton, 280 Ga. 468, 470 ( 629 SE2d 204 ) (2006).

2014Jolly, for appellee. 1 See, e.g., Cmty. Marketplace Props., LLC v. SunTrust Bank, 303 Ga. App. 403, 404 ( 693 SE2d 602 ) (2010). 2 We note in passing that it is undisputed that following Woodruff’s fall, Hayes immediately and heroically rendered aid to Woodruff until paramedics arrived, perhaps saving Woodruff’s life. 3 Woodruff also filed suit against Devan Hayes, but he is not a party to this appeal. 4 See, e.g., Cmty. Marketplace Props., LLC, 303 Ga. App. at 404 (“We apply a de novo standard of appellate review and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from

2014Jolly, for appellee. 1 See, e.g., Cmty. Marketplace Props., LLC v. SunTrust Bank, 303 Ga. App. 403, 404 ( 693 SE2d 602 ) (2010). 2 We note in passing that it is undisputed that following Woodruff’s fall, Hayes immediately and heroically rendered aid to Woodruff until paramedics arrived, perhaps saving Woodruff’s life. 3 Woodruff also filed suit against Devan Hayes, but he is not a party to this appeal. 4 See, e.g., Cmty. Marketplace Props., LLC, 303 Ga. App. at 404 (“We apply a de novo standard of appellate review and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from

2005Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga. App. 137, 138 (2) ( 479 SE2d 432 ) (1996).

2005Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga. App. 137, 138 (2) ( 479 SE2d 432 ) (1996).

2023“In reviewing the trial court’s order on both a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and a motion for summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review.” (Footnote and emphasis omitted.) Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga. App. 135, 140 (2) ( 730 SE2d 518 ) (2012).

2023“In reviewing the trial court’s order on both a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and a motion for summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review.” (Footnote and emphasis omitted.) Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga. App. 135, 140 (2) ( 730 SE2d 518 ) (2012).

2020“As in all appeals involving the construction of statutes, our review is conducted under a de novo standard.” Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692, 693 ( 749 SE2d 726 ) (2013).

2020“As in all appeals involving the construction of statutes, our review is conducted under a de novo standard.” Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692, 693 ( 749 SE2d 726 ) (2013).

2015We apply a de novo standard of review to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, “and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Punctuation omitted.) Layer v. Clipper Petroleum, 319 Ga. App. 410, 411 ( 735 SE2d 65 ) (2012).

2015We apply a de novo standard of review to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, “and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Punctuation omitted.) Layer v. Clipper Petroleum, 319 Ga. App. 410, 411 ( 735 SE2d 65 ) (2012).

2023Summary judgment is, of course, proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”3 Furthermore, a de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”4 Moreover, at the summary-judgment stage, “[w]e do not resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jur

2023Summary judgment is, of course, proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”8 And in considering a grant or denial of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review, viewing the evidence, “and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant[s].”9 Importantly, at the summary-judgment stage, “[w]e do not resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jury for re

2015Of course, “erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, are subject to the de novo standard of review.” Renu Thrift Store, Inc. v. Figueroa, 286 Ga. App. 455, 456 ( 649 SE2d 528 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted).

2015Of course, “erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, are subject to the de novo standard of review.” Renu Thrift Store, Inc. v. Figueroa, 286 Ga. App. 455, 456 ( 649 SE2d 528 ) (2007) (punctuation omitted).

2025“On appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Ga. Cash America, Inc. v. Greene, 318 Ga. App. 355, 358 (2) ( 734 SE2d 67 ) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). “[T]he moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 491 (405 SE2d. 474) (1991).

2023A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.[1] 1 While this well-established standard of review for summary judgment cases has been applied for decades, Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474 ) (1991), a recent concurral written by Justice Bethel, in which Chief Justice Boggs and Justices Warren and LaGrua joined, calls the continued adherence of this standard of review into question.

2020It is well settled that in reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, “we apply a de novo standard of review, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Citation omitted.) Grizzle v. Norsworthy, 292 Ga. App. 303 , 303- 304 ( 664 SE2d 296 ) (2008).

2020It is well settled that in reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, “we apply a de novo standard of review, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Citation omitted.) Grizzle v. Norsworthy, 292 Ga. App. 303 , 303- 304 ( 664 SE2d 296 ) (2008).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 288 Ga. 286 ( 702 SE2d 888 ) (2010) (reversing Court of Appeals, which had used a de novo analysis).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 288 Ga. 286 ( 702 SE2d 888 ) (2010) (reversing Court of Appeals, which had used a de novo analysis).

2013Carter v. Moody, 236 Ga. App. 262, 263 ( 511 SE2d 520 ) (1999) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2013Carter v. Moody, 236 Ga. App. 262, 263 ( 511 SE2d 520 ) (1999) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2014A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Citation omitted.) Davis v. VCP South, LLC, 321 Ga. App. 503, 503-504 ( 740 SE2d 410 ) (2013).

2014A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” (Citation omitted.) Davis v. VCP South, LLC, 321 Ga. App. 503, 503-504 ( 740 SE2d 410 ) (2013).

2016See Estate of Shannon v. Ahmed, 304 Ga. App. 380, 384 (1) ( 696 SE2d 408 ) (2010). 9 Thus, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply a de novo standard of review.” Artson, LLC v. Hudson, 322 Ga. App. 859, 860 ( 747 SE2d 68 ) (2013). 10 OCGA § 9-11-36 (a) (2) provides, in pertinent part that the matter addressed in a request “is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed t

2016See Estate of Shannon v. Ahmed, 304 Ga. App. 380, 384 (1) ( 696 SE2d 408 ) (2010). 9 Thus, “we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply a de novo standard of review.” Artson, LLC v. Hudson, 322 Ga. App. 859, 860 ( 747 SE2d 68 ) (2013). 10 OCGA § 9-11-36 (a) (2) provides, in pertinent part that the matter addressed in a request “is admitted unless, within 30 days after service of the request or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed t

2014Compare State v. Underwood, 283 Ga. 498, 500-501 ( 661 SE2d 529 ) (2008) (applying de novo standard where evidence is uncontroverted and credibility is not challenged).

2014Compare State v. Underwood, 283 Ga. 498, 500-501 ( 661 SE2d 529 ) (2008) (applying de novo standard where evidence is uncontroverted and credibility is not challenged).

2007(Citation omitted.) Ponder v. Brooks, 256 Ga.App. 596, 597 , 569 S.E.2d 267 (2002).

2007(Citation omitted.) Ponder v. Brooks, 256 Ga.App. 596, 597 , 569 S.E.2d 267 (2002).

2017See Trax-Fax, Inc. v. Hobba, 277 Ga. App. 464, 464 ( 627 SE2d 90 ) (2006) (“[EJrroneous applications of law to undisputed facts . . . are subject to a de novo standard of review.”).

2017See Trax-Fax, Inc. v. Hobba, 277 Ga. App. 464, 464 ( 627 SE2d 90 ) (2006) (“[EJrroneous applications of law to undisputed facts . . . are subject to a de novo standard of review.”).

2017This [c]ourt applies a de novo standard of review to an appeal from the grant of summary judgment and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Davis v. Overall, 301 Ga. App. 4, 5 ( 686 SE2d 839 ) (2009) (citation omitted). 3 The parties dispute much of the evidence, and Atlantic argues that we should apply the rule articulated in Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 28 (1) ( 343 SE2d 680 ) (1986), to construe the arguably contradictory testimony of Phoenix’s manager against Phoenix, even though Phoenix is the nonmovant.

2017This [c]ourt applies a de novo standard of review to an appeal from the grant of summary judgment and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Davis v. Overall, 301 Ga. App. 4, 5 ( 686 SE2d 839 ) (2009) (citation omitted). 3 The parties dispute much of the evidence, and Atlantic argues that we should apply the rule articulated in Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 28 (1) ( 343 SE2d 680 ) (1986), to construe the arguably contradictory testimony of Phoenix’s manager against Phoenix, even though Phoenix is the nonmovant.

2025Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”7 A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”8 And importantly, at the summary-judgment stage, we do not “resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted 7 OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); a

2025Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”7 A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”8 And importantly, at the summary-judgment stage, we do not “resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted 7 OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); a

2023Summary judgment is, of course, proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”3 Furthermore, a de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”4 Moreover, at the summary-judgment stage, “[w]e do not resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jur

2023Summary judgment is, of course, proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”3 Furthermore, a de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”4 Moreover, at the summary-judgment stage, “[w]e do not resolve disputed facts, reconcile the issues, weigh the evidence, or determine its credibility, as those matters must be submitted to a jur

2022Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459, 459 ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”). 16 See Solomon v. Barnett, 281 Ga. 130, 131 ( 636 SE2d 541 ) (2006) (“Applying our holding in [Lau’s Corp., 261 Ga. at 491 ], we recognize that Barnett, as a named defendant, could prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 only by affirmatively disproving Solomon’s claim with his own evidence establishing the absence

2022Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459, 459 ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997) (“A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”). 16 See Solomon v. Barnett, 281 Ga. 130, 131 ( 636 SE2d 541 ) (2006) (“Applying our holding in [Lau’s Corp., 261 Ga. at 491 ], we recognize that Barnett, as a named defendant, could prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 only by affirmatively disproving Solomon’s claim with his own evidence establishing the absence