14 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1921–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2021See id. (a) (3) (“No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection[.]”). 5 A purpose of these notice requirements is “to ensure that the state receives adequate notice of the claim to facilitate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit.” Williams v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624, 625 (532 SE2d 401) (2000) (“Williams”).4 Strict compliance with the GTCA’s ante litem notice requirements is required; substan 2021See id. (a) (3) (“No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection[.]”). 5 A purpose of these notice requirements is “to ensure that the state receives adequate notice of the claim to facilitate settlement before the filing of a lawsuit.” Williams v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624, 625 (532 SE2d 401) (2000) (“Williams”).4 Strict compliance with the GTCA’s ante litem notice requirements is required; substan | 1 | 3 |
Lang v. Brand-Vaughan Lumber Co.green2 sentences2022Compare OCGA §§ 36-33-5 (b) (“No action shall be entertained by the courts against the municipal corporation until the cause of action therein has first been presented to the governing authority for adjustment.”); 50-21-26 (a) (3) (“No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented[.]”) with Lang v. Brand-Vaughan Lumber Co., 339 Ga. App. 710, 714 (1) ( 792 SE2d 461 ) (2016) (physical precedent only) (“[A] materialman’s lien is an interest perfected only by comp 2022Compare OCGA §§ 36-33-5 (b) (“No action shall be entertained by the courts against the municipal corporation until the cause of action therein has first been presented to the governing authority for adjustment.”); 50-21-26 (a) (3) (“No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented[.]”) with Lang v. Brand-Vaughan Lumber Co., 339 Ga. App. 710, 714 (1) ( 792 SE2d 461 ) (2016) (physical precedent only) (“[A] materialman’s lien is an interest perfected only by comp | 1 | 1 |
Tucker Door & Trim Corp. v. Fifteenth Street Co.green1 sentence2022Still, a lawsuit will not necessarily follow from filing a lien and often does not.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Tucker Door & Trim Corp., 235 Ga. at 729 (“The filing of the claim of lien is similar to a lis pendens notice. | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Futralgreen1 sentence2022Compare OCGA §§ 36-33-5 (b) (“No action shall be entertained by the courts against the municipal corporation until the cause of action therein has first been presented to the governing authority for adjustment.”); 50-21-26 (a) (3) (“No action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented[.]”) with Lang v. Brand-Vaughan Lumber Co., 339 Ga. App. 710, 714 (1) ( 792 SE2d 461 ) (2016) (physical precedent only) (“[A] materialman’s lien is an interest perfected only by comp | 1 | 1 |
Gambell v. Georgia Ports Authoritygreen2 sentences2019Indeed, “[t]he explicit ante[-]litem notice provision is ignored only at peril to a plaintiff’s cause of action and serves as a condition precedent for bringing suit under the Act.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gambell v. Georgia Ports Auth., 276 Ga. App. 115, 116 (1) ( 622 SE2d 464 ) (2005). 2019Indeed, “[t]he explicit ante[-]litem notice provision is ignored only at peril to a plaintiff’s cause of action and serves as a condition precedent for bringing suit under the Act.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Gambell v. Georgia Ports Auth., 276 Ga. App. 115, 116 (1) ( 622 SE2d 464 ) (2005). | 1 | 1 |
DeFloria v. Walkergreen2 sentences2018See DeFloria v. Walker , 317 Ga. App. 578 , 580, 732 S.E.2d 121 (2012). 2018See DeFloria v. Walker , 317 Ga. App. 578 , 580, 732 S.E.2d 121 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
Cummings v. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justicegreen2 sentences2014Dorn contends that he complied with this provision because the GTCA does not require that the notice state the dollar amount of the claim, and that he stated the amount of the loss to the extent of his knowledge and belief as practicable under the circumstances given that a claim for wrongful death is an unliquidated claim. 4 As the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained, “the GTCA’s ante litem notice provisions clearly contemplate the possibility that a claimant may have imperfect information regarding various facets of [his] claim at the time [his] notice is submitted.” Cummings v. Ga. Dept. 2014Dorn contends that he complied with this provision because the GTCA does not require that the notice state the dollar amount of the claim, and that he stated the amount of the loss to the extent of his knowledge and belief as practicable under the circumstances given that a claim for wrongful death is an unliquidated claim. 4 As the Supreme Court of Georgia has explained, “the GTCA’s ante litem notice provisions clearly contemplate the possibility that a claimant may have imperfect information regarding various facets of [his] claim at the time [his] notice is submitted.” Cummings v. Ga. Dept. | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr 2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr | 1 | 1 |
Bradley v. Georgia Institute of Technologygreen2 sentences2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr 2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr | 1 | 1 |
Kim v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr 2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Assurance Co. of America v. Bell
green
2 sentences1990Assurance Co. of America v. Bell, 108 Ga. App. 766 (1) ( 134 SE2d 540 ).” Wolverine Ins. 1990Assurance Co. of America v. Bell, 108 Ga. App. 766 (1) ( 134 SE2d 540 ).” Wolverine Ins. | 2 | 1970–1990 |
Shelnutt v. Georgia Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2018If failure to attach such exhibits to the complaint is not cured within 30 days after the [S]tate raises such issue by motion, then the complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice[.] (Emphasis supplied.) "Strict compliance with the provisions of OCGA § 50-21-26 is required." (Citation omitted.) Shelnutt , supra at 110 , 611 S.E.2d 762 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Simmons v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2012Wife’s reliance on Simmons v. Simmons, 265 Ga. 183 ( 453 SE2d 696 ) (1995), for the proposition that the written notice of hearing was defective because it failed to specify the subject matter is misplaced. 2012Wife’s reliance on Simmons v. Simmons, 265 Ga. 183 ( 453 SE2d 696 ) (1995), for the proposition that the written notice of hearing was defective because it failed to specify the subject matter is misplaced. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pillar Development, Inc. v. Fuqua Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2008Pillar Dev., supra, 284 Ga. App. at 861-862 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Henderson v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr 2001The General Assembly in crafting the State Tort Claims Act clearly, unambiguously, and plainly stated: "[n]o action against the state under this article shall be commenced and the courts shall have no jurisdiction thereof unless and until a written notice of claim has been timely presented to the state as provided in this subsection." Ga. L.1992, p. 188 3, § 1; Ga. L.1994, p. 1717, § 12; Ga. L.1998, p. 128, § 50; OCGA § 50-21-26(a)(3); Williams v. Dept. of Human Resources, 272 Ga. 624 , 532 S.E.2d 401 (2000); Henderson v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 90 , 475 S.E.2d 614 (1996); Kim v. Dept. of Tr | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hardy v. Candler County
neutral
2 sentences1997The Court of Appeals in Hardy v. Candler County, 214 Ga.App. 627 , 448 S.E.2d 487 (1994), considered whether the legislature intended *829 the terms "given" and "presented" to require actual receipt of the written notice of claim by the state within the requisite statutory period. 1997The Court of Appeals in Hardy v. Candler County, 214 Ga.App. 627 , 448 S.E.2d 487 (1994), considered whether the legislature intended *829 the terms "given" and "presented" to require actual receipt of the written notice of claim by the state within the requisite statutory period. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Moss v. State
green
1 sentence1995Moss, supra. Such subsequent oral notification must be clear, however, and in all cases, written notification is preferable in order to avoid misunderstandings concerning the notice. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
American Bonding & Surety Co. v. Adams
green
1 sentence1921On the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of. the note sued upon, on the ground that “ no valid assignment of said note had been made to respondents, and no evidence of same, and that the said stencil marks, instead of making an assignment and transfer of the title to said note to respondents, negatived the. assignment and negotiability of the same.” The note did show that it was indorsed to' ‘Head & Gain, for collection.” Under such assignment “the indorsee had such a legal title as would authorize him to bring suit upon the paper in his own name.” Neal v. Gray, 124 Ga. 511 (3), | 1 | 1921–1921 |
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.