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.
8 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Georgia Department of Labor v. Rtt Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2023The district cites Ga. Dept. of Labor v. RTT Assoc., 299 Ga. 78 ( 786 SE2d 840 ) (2016), for the proposition that a written contract subject to the ex contractu waiver of sovereign immunity cannot “arise from a previous written contract that has been extended without a formal, written amendment to it[.]” But that decision is inapposite. 2023The district cites Ga. Dept. of Labor v. RTT Assoc., 299 Ga. 78 ( 786 SE2d 840 ) (2016), for the proposition that a written contract subject to the ex contractu waiver of sovereign immunity cannot “arise from a previous written contract that has been extended without a formal, written amendment to it[.]” But that decision is inapposite. | 3 | 3 |
Nebo Ventures, LLC v. Novapro Risk Solutions, L.P.green1 sentence2023Thus, in order to overcome the District’s assertion of sovereign immunity using the ex contractu exception, “[Tibbetts] has the burden of showing that the contract sought to be enforced is in writing and contains all of the terms necessary to constitute a valid contract.” And here, although Tibbetts may be entitled to continuing employment, he failed to show a written contract including all necessary terms that was executed by the parties.1 The statute states that a teacher’s “employment” shall be renewed, not the teacher’s “employment contract.” And in any event, the “renewal” of a contract i | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Achour v. Belk & Co., 148 Ga. App. 306, 307 ( 251 SE2d 157 ) (1978) (“When acceptance is required by the contract to be received within a stated time, there is no contract when not so received [u]nless the acceptance became a counter-offer accepted by the offeror.”). 2 In fact, if Tibbetts is found to be employed under the same written contract as before, then he would be teaching for another year without receiving the benefit of a year of creditable service towards his salary scale. | 1 | 1 |
Achour v. Belk & Co.green1 sentence2023See Achour v. Belk & Co., 148 Ga. App. 306, 307 ( 251 SE2d 157 ) (1978) (“When acceptance is required by the contract to be received within a stated time, there is no contract when not so received [u]nless the acceptance became a counter-offer accepted by the offeror.”). 2 In fact, if Tibbetts is found to be employed under the same written contract as before, then he would be teaching for another year without receiving the benefit of a year of creditable service towards his salary scale. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Georgia Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., James v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 337 Ga. App. 864, 865 (1), 867 (2) ( 789 SE2d 236 ) (2016). 2023See, e.g., James v. Ga. Dept. of Public Safety, 337 Ga. App. 864, 865 (1), 867 (2) ( 789 SE2d 236 ) (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Georgia Department of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLCgreen2 sentences2023As the party seeking to benefit from the waiver of sovereign immunity in this case, Tibbetts “bears the burden of proving such waiver.” Ga. Dept. of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC, 313 Ga. App. 683, 685 (1) ( 722 SE2d 403 ) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2023As the party seeking to benefit from the waiver of sovereign immunity in this case, Tibbetts “bears the burden of proving such waiver.” Ga. Dept. of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC, 313 Ga. App. 683, 685 (1) ( 722 SE2d 403 ) (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Jennings Enterprises, Inc. v. Cartegreen2 sentences1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Dollargreen1 sentence1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 | 1 | 1 |
West v. Nodvingreen2 sentences1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 1997See Jennings Enterprises v. Carte, 224 Ga. App. 538, 541 (4) ( 481 SE2d 541 ) (1997) (the term “liquidation” means “an amount certain and fixed, either by act and agreement of the parties, or by operation of law” (emphasis supplied) and that “[t]he word liquidated,’ as used in the statute[,] means settled, acknowledged, or agreed”); see also Ward v. Dollar, 216 Ga. App. 143, 144 ( 453 SE2d 142 ) (1995) (wherein the amount of damages in a conversion action was evidenced by several deposit slips and undisputed by a defaulting defendant); West v. Nodvin, 196 Ga. App. 825, 831 ( 397 SE2d 567 ) (19 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Layer v. Barrow County
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., RTT Assocs., Inc., 299 Ga. at 81 (1) (“The burden of demonstrating a waiver of sovereign immunity rests upon the party asserting it.”); Layer v. Barrow County, 297 Ga. 871 (1) ( 778 SE2d 156 ) (2015) (“Although sovereign immunity has been waived for actions ex contractu for the breach of any written contract, sovereign immunity generally will bar a lawsuit for breach of an unwritten contract. 2024See, e.g., RTT Assocs., Inc., 299 Ga. at 81 (1) (“The burden of demonstrating a waiver of sovereign immunity rests upon the party asserting it.”); Layer v. Barrow County, 297 Ga. 871 (1) ( 778 SE2d 156 ) (2015) (“Although sovereign immunity has been waived for actions ex contractu for the breach of any written contract, sovereign immunity generally will bar a lawsuit for breach of an unwritten contract. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Trecia Neal v. Georgia Department of Community Health
green
1 sentence2019Id. (rejecting appellants’ assertion that “the SHBP statutes and regulations themselves constitute a written contract,” and affirming a grant of summary judgment to the Department of Community Health on appellant’s claims for breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing). 2. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kennedy v. Georgia Department of Human Resources Child Support Enforcement
green
2 sentences2015In Kennedy v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. App. 222 ( 648 SE2d 727 ) (2007), for example, we held that despite the use of the term “contract” throughout a so-called “statement of understanding,” the terms of that document were “too uncertain to form a binding legal contract,” such that a plaintiff had failed to show a waiver of sovereign immunity under the ex contractu exception. 2015In Kennedy v. Dept. of Human Resources, 286 Ga. App. 222 ( 648 SE2d 727 ) (2007), for example, we held that despite the use of the term “contract” throughout a so-called “statement of understanding,” the terms of that document were “too uncertain to form a binding legal contract,” such that a plaintiff had failed to show a waiver of sovereign immunity under the ex contractu exception. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Summerour v. Medlin
green
2 sentences1979The verified complaint forming the basis for the default judgment averred that "Defendants are indebted to Plaintiff pursuant to an employment agreement for liquidated damages in the amount of $7,029.62.” While the legal conclusion that the damages were liquidated was not admitted by default, (see Summerour v. Medlin, 48 Ga. App. 403 (1) ( 172 SE 836 )), the complaint otherwise sets forth an ex contractu claim seeking a liquidated amount. 1979The verified complaint forming the basis for the default judgment averred that "Defendants are indebted to Plaintiff pursuant to an employment agreement for liquidated damages in the amount of $7,029.62.” While the legal conclusion that the damages were liquidated was not admitted by default, (see Summerour v. Medlin, 48 Ga. App. 403 (1) ( 172 SE 836 )), the complaint otherwise sets forth an ex contractu claim seeking a liquidated amount. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.