proofs proffered hearing (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

proofs proffered hearing in Georgia

13 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1976–1997 0 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Diebold, Inc.green
scotus · 1962 · cited in 9 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1976–1997
2 sentences

1997United States v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993, 994 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)." Lewis v. C & S Nat.

1997United States v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655 , 82 S.Ct. 993, 994 , 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)." Lewis v. C & S Nat.

99
Jonesboro Tool & Die Corp. v. Georgia Power Co.green
gactapp · 1981 · cited in 3 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1983–1984
2 sentences

1984“The cardinal rule in the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue of fact. [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and if the trial court is presented with a choice of inferences to be drawn from the facts, all inferences of fact from the proofs proffered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion. [Cit.]” Jonesboro Tool & Die Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 158 Ga.

1984“The cardinal rule in the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue of fact. [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and if the trial court is presented with a choice of inferences to be drawn from the facts, all inferences of fact from the proofs proffered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion. [Cit.]” Jonesboro Tool & Die Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 158 Ga.

33
Lewis v. Citizens & Southern National Bankgreen
gactapp · 1976 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1977–1987
2 sentences

1987United States v. Diebold, 369 U. S. 654, 655 (82 SC 993, 8 LE2d 176); Lewis v. C & S Bank, 139 Ga. App. 855, 860 ( 229 SE2d 765 ).

1987United States v. Diebold, 369 U. S. 654, 655 (82 SC 993, 8 LE2d 176); Lewis v. C & S Bank, 139 Ga. App. 855, 860 ( 229 SE2d 765 ).

22
KOHLMEYER & COMPANY v. Bowengreen
gactapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977On motion for summary judgment the court is not authorized to try and resolve issues of fact; the function of the court, and its only authorized function under this procedure, is to determine the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. [Cits.].'" Kohlmeyer & Co. v. Bowen, 130 Ga. App. 386, 387 (4) ( 203 SE2d 630 ) (1973). "`The cardinal rule of the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue.' [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a *14

1977On motion for summary judgment the court is not authorized to try and resolve issues of fact; the function of the court, and its only authorized function under this procedure, is to determine the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. [Cits.].'" Kohlmeyer & Co. v. Bowen, 130 Ga. App. 386, 387 (4) ( 203 SE2d 630 ) (1973). "`The cardinal rule of the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue.' [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a *14

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Where else courts name it

NC 17 (1972–2009) GA 13 (1976–1997) FL 8 (1958–1971)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check