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.
6 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1860–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Burtongreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Jones v. Burton, 238 Ga. 394, 395 ( 233 SE2d 367 ) (1977). 2004See, e.g., Jones v. Burton, 238 Ga. 394, 395 ( 233 SE2d 367 ) (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Dicksongreen2 sentences1994In Thomas v. Dickson, 250 Ga. 772, 774 ( 301 SE2d 49 ) (1983), this court recognized the general rule that “a shareholder seeking to recover misappropriated corporate funds may only bring a derivative suit. [Cits.]” Nevertheless, we permitted the minority shareholder of a close corporation to bring a direct action against the majority shareholders for misappropriation of corporate funds because exceptional circumstances were present. 1994In Thomas v. Dickson, 250 Ga. 772, 774 ( 301 SE2d 49 ) (1983), this court recognized the general rule that “a shareholder seeking to recover misappropriated corporate funds may only bring a derivative suit. [Cits.]” Nevertheless, we permitted the minority shareholder of a close corporation to bring a direct action against the majority shareholders for misappropriation of corporate funds because exceptional circumstances were present. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alexander v. Harnick
green
1 sentence2024The Court recognized the general principle that a person has no duty to rescue another from a situation of peril which the person did not cause, but held that “[i]f the defendant’s own negligence has been responsible for the plaintiff’s situation, a relation has arisen which imposes a duty to make a reasonable effort to give assistance, and avoid any further harm.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1967In Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga. App. 584 ( 26 SE2d 380 ), this court recognized the general rule and the exception as to work which is inherently or intrinsically dangerous or so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons. 1967In Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga. App. 584 ( 26 SE2d 380 ), this court recognized the general rule and the exception as to work which is inherently or intrinsically dangerous or so negligently defective as to be imminently dangerous to third persons. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Gray v. Hamil
green
1 sentence1899In the case of Gray v. Hamil, 82 Ga. 375 , this court recognized the general rule to be, “that a partner is entitled to nothing extra for any inequality of service rendered by him as compared with that rendered by his copartner,” and it is there intimated that no claim for compensation for such service could arise out of anything less than an express contract to that effect. | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Park v. Barron
neutral
1 sentence1860Barron, 20 Ga., 702—Judge McDonald delivering the opinion. “ It is conceded that the precise point before the Court .in that case, and adjudicated by it, is not identical with the question now under consideration, but the Judge who delivered the opinion of the Court recognized the general principle which has now been laid down. “ The facts of that case were these : James Barron intermarried, and was divorced from his first wife at her instance, he being the ‘ guilty party.’ He afterwards married again, his first wife being still alive; by both he had- children; after his death, his children we | 1 | 1860–1860 |
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.