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.
10 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2017(Citation omitted.) London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F3d 1246, 1253 (IV) (C) (11th Cir. 2003). 2017(Citation omitted.) London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F3d 1246, 1253 (IV) (C) (11th Cir. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
Liberty Lending Services v. Canadagreen1 sentence2025See generally Canada, 293 Ga. App. at 739 (1) (c). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Knology, Inc.green2 sentences2022OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (4) mandates that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” “Subsection (a) (4) is colloquially referred to as the adequacy requirement” and “is intended to protect the legal rights of absent class members.” Lewis v. Knology, Inc., 341 Ga. App. 86, 90 (1) ( 799 SE2d 247 ) (2017). 2022OCGA § 9-11-23 (a) (4) mandates that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” “Subsection (a) (4) is colloquially referred to as the adequacy requirement” and “is intended to protect the legal rights of absent class members.” Lewis v. Knology, Inc., 341 Ga. App. 86, 90 (1) ( 799 SE2d 247 ) (2017). | 1 | 1 |
KEY SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. v. BRUNER Et Al.green2 sentences2019See Key Safety Systems , 334 Ga. App. at 720 (1), 780 S.E.2d 389 ("Questions of adequacy of a warning and proximate cause resulting from a complete lack of warning or an inadequate warning are peculiarly questions for the jury.") (citation and punctuation omitted). 2019See Key Safety Systems , 334 Ga. App. at 720 (1), 780 S.E.2d 389 ("Questions of adequacy of a warning and proximate cause resulting from a complete lack of warning or an inadequate warning are peculiarly questions for the jury.") (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2017Moreover, as made clear by our Supreme Court, “the ability of the plaintiff to represent the class must be considered,” and in making that determination, the experience of plaintiff’s counsel and “whether plaintiffs’ interests are antagonistic to those of the class” are “important aspects of adequate representation.” Stevens v. Thomas, 257 Ga. 645, 649 (2) ( 361 SE2d 800 ) (1987). 2017Moreover, as made clear by our Supreme Court, “the ability of the plaintiff to represent the class must be considered,” and in making that determination, the experience of plaintiff’s counsel and “whether plaintiffs’ interests are antagonistic to those of the class” are “important aspects of adequate representation.” Stevens v. Thomas, 257 Ga. 645, 649 (2) ( 361 SE2d 800 ) (1987). | 1 | 1 |
prod.liab.rep.(cch)p. 13,906 Lauren David Thornton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc.green1 sentence2015Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 22 F3d 284, 289 (III) (b) (1994) (“The general rule in Georgia is that the adequacy of the warning is an issue for the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Beam v. Omark Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2015Whether adequate efforts were made to communicate a warning to the ultimate user and whether the warning if communicated was adequate are uniformly held questions for the jury.”); Beam v. Omark Industries, Inc., 143 Ga. App. 142, 145 (1) ( 237 SE2d 607 ) (1977). 10 See Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 644-645 (1) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). 11 (Punctuation omitted.) J. 2015Whether adequate efforts were made to communicate a warning to the ultimate user and whether the warning if communicated was adequate are uniformly held questions for the jury.”); Beam v. Omark Industries, Inc., 143 Ga. App. 142, 145 (1) ( 237 SE2d 607 ) (1977). 10 See Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 644-645 (1) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). 11 (Punctuation omitted.) J. | 1 | 1 |
Giordano v. Ford Motor Companygreen1 sentence2015Whether adequate efforts were made to communicate a warning to the ultimate user and whether the warning if communicated was adequate are uniformly held questions for the jury.”); Beam v. Omark Industries, Inc., 143 Ga. App. 142, 145 (1) ( 237 SE2d 607 ) (1977). 10 See Giordano v. Ford Motor Co., 165 Ga. App. 644, 644-645 (1) ( 299 SE2d 897 ) (1983). 11 (Punctuation omitted.) J. | 1 | 1 |
McCombs v. Synthesgreen1 sentence2004As directed therein, we consider McCombs’s argument made here that there remained a jury question as to the adequacy of the warning given to her surgeon by Synthes (U.S.A.), although, as acknowledged in McCombs v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 277 Ga. at 254, “[i]n response to the summary judgment motion, McCombs did not contend that the warning to her doctor inadequately conveyed the dangers associated with the use of the plate.” The warning included in the package insert with the Synthes plate is set out in McCombs v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 250 Ga. App. at 544 , including the phrase “[tjhese devices can brea | 1 | 1 |
Mayor &C. of Savannah v. Palmeriogreen2 sentences1992“A motion for directed verdict is properly granted if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.” Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Palmerio, 242 Ga. 419, 421 ( 249 SE2d 224 ) (1978). 1992“A motion for directed verdict is properly granted if there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict.” Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Palmerio, 242 Ga. 419, 421 ( 249 SE2d 224 ) (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Center Chemical Co. v. Parzinigreen2 sentences1987See also Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 871 (6) ( 218 SE2d 580 ) (1975); Evershine Prods. v. Schmitt, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to grant summary judgment in favor of appellant as to the adequacy of its warning. 4. 1987See also Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 871 (6) ( 218 SE2d 580 ) (1975); Evershine Prods. v. Schmitt, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to grant summary judgment in favor of appellant as to the adequacy of its warning. 4. | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Leegreen2 sentences1982See Ford Motor Co. v. Lee, 137 Ga. App. 486, 487 (2), supra; Parzini v. Center Chemical Co., 136 Ga. App. 396, 399 , supra. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff had been treated on numerous occasions with the “permanent creme relaxer” by the same defendant hairdresser and defendant beauty salon in the same manner as was the case here without difficulty. 1982See Ford Motor Co. v. Lee, 137 Ga. App. 486, 487 (2), supra; Parzini v. Center Chemical Co., *762 136 Ga. App. 396, 399 , supra. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff had been treated on numerous occasions with the "permanent creme relaxer" by the same defendant hairdresser and defendant beauty salon in the same manner as was the case here without difficulty. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor
green
2 sentences2017Subsection (a) (4) is colloquially referred to as the adequacy requirement, and it applies to both the named plaintiff and counsel. 6 See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 , 626 n.20 ( 117 SCt 2231 , 138 LE2d 689) (1997). 2017Subsection (a) (4) is colloquially referred to as the adequacy requirement, and it applies to both the named plaintiff and counsel. 6 See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 , 626 n.20 ( 117 SCt 2231 , 138 LE2d 689) (1997). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
McCombs v. Synthes (USA)
green
1 sentence2004As directed therein, we consider McCombs’s argument made here that there remained a jury question as to the adequacy of the warning given to her surgeon by Synthes (U.S.A.), although, as acknowledged in McCombs v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 277 Ga. at 254, “[i]n response to the summary judgment motion, McCombs did not contend that the warning to her doctor inadequately conveyed the dangers associated with the use of the plate.” The warning included in the package insert with the Synthes plate is set out in McCombs v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 250 Ga. App. at 544 , including the phrase “[tjhese devices can brea | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Spivey v. Vaughn
green
2 sentences1987Appellant urges that it was entitled to the grant of summary judgment because appellee Mr. Brackett assumed the risk as a matter of law. “[T]he question presented to this court is whether the record presents facts so plain and palpable that they demand a finding by the court as a matter of law that the [injured party] ‘had some actual knowledge of the danger; that he understood and appreciated the risk therefrom, and that he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk.’ [Cit.] ‘It is axiomatic that issues of negligence [and] assumption of risk . . . are not susceptible of summary adjudication exc 1987Appellant urges that it was entitled to the grant of summary judgment because appellee Mr. Brackett assumed the risk as a matter of law. “[T]he question presented to this court is whether the record presents facts so plain and palpable that they demand a finding by the court as a matter of law that the [injured party] ‘had some actual knowledge of the danger; that he understood and appreciated the risk therefrom, and that he voluntarily exposed himself to such risk.’ [Cit.] ‘It is axiomatic that issues of negligence [and] assumption of risk . . . are not susceptible of summary adjudication exc | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Evershine Products, Inc. v. Schmitt
green
1 sentence1987See also Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868, 871 (6) ( 218 SE2d 580 ) (1975); Evershine Prods. v. Schmitt, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to grant summary judgment in favor of appellant as to the adequacy of its warning. 4. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Parzini v. Center Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences1982See Ford Motor Co. v. Lee, 137 Ga. App. 486, 487 (2), supra; Parzini v. Center Chemical Co., 136 Ga. App. 396, 399 , supra. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff had been treated on numerous occasions with the “permanent creme relaxer” by the same defendant hairdresser and defendant beauty salon in the same manner as was the case here without difficulty. 1982See Ford Motor Co. v. Lee, 137 Ga. App. 486, 487 (2), supra; Parzini v. Center Chemical Co., *762 136 Ga. App. 396, 399 , supra. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff had been treated on numerous occasions with the "permanent creme relaxer" by the same defendant hairdresser and defendant beauty salon in the same manner as was the case here without difficulty. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.