10 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Legacy Communities Group, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.green2 sentences2012Id. at 474-475 (2). 2012Id. at 474-475 (2). | 2 | 2 |
Tampa Investment Group, Inc. v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.green2 sentences2012Id. 2012(Citation omitted.) Tampa, 290 Ga. at 730 (2). | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. GWINNETT COMMUNITY BANKgreen2 sentences2018We overrule Hendricks , 199 Ga. App. 577 , 405 S.E.2d 566 , and Brooks v. Gwinnett Community Bank , 311 Ga. App. 806 , 807, 717 S.E.2d 647 (2011), which relied on the holding in Hendricks , to the extent they hold that a release from an agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds must be in writing. 8 *571 (b) Nevertheless, we conclude that there is an issue of fact as to whether there was a meeting of the minds. 2018We overrule Hendricks , 199 Ga. App. 577 , 405 S.E.2d 566 , and Brooks v. Gwinnett Community Bank , 311 Ga. App. 806 , 807, 717 S.E.2d 647 (2011), which relied on the holding in Hendricks , to the extent they hold that a release from an agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds must be in writing. 8 *571 (b) Nevertheless, we conclude that there is an issue of fact as to whether there was a meeting of the minds. | 1 | 2 |
Murray v. Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply Co.green2 sentences2011Henry Enterprises v. Verifone, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 195, 198 (2) ( 614 SE2d 841 ) (2005) (Where a guaranty misnamed the principal debtor, but where the circumstances showed that, if the guarantor did not intend to guarantee the note the lender sued upon, then the guarantor perpetrated a fraud in executing the guaranty, the guarantor was estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds defense to escape liability on the guaranty agreement.); Murray v. Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply Co., 176 Ga. App. 225, 226-227 ( 335 SE2d 443 ) (1985) (Although a guaranty omitted the name of the plaintiff creditor as 2011Henry Enterprises v. Verifone, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 195, 198 (2) ( 614 SE2d 841 ) (2005) (Where a guaranty misnamed the principal debtor, but where the circumstances showed that, if the guarantor did not intend to guarantee the note the lender sued upon, then the guarantor perpetrated a fraud in executing the guaranty, the guarantor was estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds defense to escape liability on the guaranty agreement.); Murray v. Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply Co., 176 Ga. App. 225, 226-227 ( 335 SE2d 443 ) (1985) (Although a guaranty omitted the name of the plaintiff creditor as | 1 | 2 |
JOBLING Et Al. v. SHELTONgreen2 sentences2017OCGA § 9-11-8 (c) (requiring defendant to set forth affirmatively defense of statute of frauds); Jobling v. Shelton, 334 Ga. App. 483, 489 (2) (c) ( 779 SE2d 705 ) (2015) (“It is well settled that this Court will not consider arguments asserted for the first time on appeal and thus neither raised nor ruled upon in the trial court. 2017OCGA § 9-11-8 (c) (requiring defendant to set forth affirmatively defense of statute of frauds); Jobling v. Shelton, 334 Ga. App. 483, 489 (2) (c) ( 779 SE2d 705 ) (2015) (“It is well settled that this Court will not consider arguments asserted for the first time on appeal and thus neither raised nor ruled upon in the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
L. Henry Enterprises, Ltd. v. Verifone, Inc.green2 sentences2011Henry Enterprises v. Verifone, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 195, 198 (2) ( 614 SE2d 841 ) (2005) (Where a guaranty misnamed the principal debtor, but where the circumstances showed that, if the guarantor did not intend to guarantee the note the lender sued upon, then the guarantor perpetrated a fraud in executing the guaranty, the guarantor was estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds defense to escape liability on the guaranty agreement.); Murray v. Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply Co., 176 Ga. App. 225, 226-227 ( 335 SE2d 443 ) (1985) (Although a guaranty omitted the name of the plaintiff creditor as 2011Henry Enterprises v. Verifone, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 195, 198 (2) ( 614 SE2d 841 ) (2005) (Where a guaranty misnamed the principal debtor, but where the circumstances showed that, if the guarantor did not intend to guarantee the note the lender sued upon, then the guarantor perpetrated a fraud in executing the guaranty, the guarantor was estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds defense to escape liability on the guaranty agreement.); Murray v. Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply Co., 176 Ga. App. 225, 226-227 ( 335 SE2d 443 ) (1985) (Although a guaranty omitted the name of the plaintiff creditor as | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Lumpkingreen2 sentences1990Compare Scott v. Lumpkin, 153 Ga. App. 17 ( 264 SE2d 514 ) (1980). 1990Compare Scott v. Lumpkin, 153 Ga. App. 17 ( 264 SE2d 514 ) (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hendricks v. Enterprise Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences2018We overrule Hendricks , 199 Ga. App. 577 , 405 S.E.2d 566 , and Brooks v. Gwinnett Community Bank , 311 Ga. App. 806 , 807, 717 S.E.2d 647 (2011), which relied on the holding in Hendricks , to the extent they hold that a release from an agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds must be in writing. 8 *571 (b) Nevertheless, we conclude that there is an issue of fact as to whether there was a meeting of the minds. 2018We overrule Hendricks , 199 Ga. App. 577 , 405 S.E.2d 566 , and Brooks v. Gwinnett Community Bank , 311 Ga. App. 806 , 807, 717 S.E.2d 647 (2011), which relied on the holding in Hendricks , to the extent they hold that a release from an agreement subject to the Statute of Frauds must be in writing. 8 *571 (b) Nevertheless, we conclude that there is an issue of fact as to whether there was a meeting of the minds. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Patterson-Fowlkes v. Chancey
green
1 sentence2025Id. 9 Within these contentions, Defendants also raise a statute of frauds defense that was not raised during trial. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Roland v. Floyd
neutral
1 sentence1980Since this alleged parol agreement creating the relationship of landlord and tenant for the period of one year was not subject to a Statute of Frauds defense (Roland v. Floyd, 53 Ga. App. 282 (1) ( 185 SE 580 )), the trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant’s motion on this ground. 2. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Daniels v. State
neutral
1 sentence1980Since this alleged parol agreement creating the relationship of landlord and tenant for the period of one year was not subject to a Statute of Frauds defense (Roland v. Floyd, 53 Ga. App. 282 (1) ( 185 SE 580 )), the trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant’s motion on this ground. 2. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.