5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Transportation v. Arapaho Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 180 Ga. App. 341, 343 (1) ( 349 SE2d 196 ) (1986), aff’d, Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 257 Ga. 269 ( 357 SE2d 593 ) (1987). 2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 180 Ga. App. 341, 343 (1) ( 349 SE2d 196 ) (1986), aff’d, Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 257 Ga. 269 ( 357 SE2d 593 ) (1987). | 2 | 2 |
BRADFORD SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASS'N v. Millergreen1 sentence2025The reason why 12 See Bradford Square, 258 Ga. App. at 249 (on motion for reconsideration, noting that our decision was based on “the unique interrelationship between a condominium association and the unit owners/members that are, in fact, the association[,]” and emphasizing that “[w]e were not asked to decide in this case a condominium association’s duty toward nonmembers/owners pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-1[ ]”) (emphasis in original). 8 exculpatory clauses should be explicit, prominent, clear and unambiguous, is that such an agreement amounts to a waiver of substantial rights, could be an accor | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Skate Escape, Ltd.green2 sentences1986We agree. “[E]xculpatory clauses must be clear and unambiguous, they must be specific in what they purport to cover, and any ambiguity will be construed against the drafter of the instrument. [Cits.] The reason why exculpatory clauses should be explicit, prominent, clear and unambiguous, is that such an agreement amounts to a waiver of substantial rights, could be an accord and satisfaction of possible future claims, and requires a meeting of the minds on the subject matter. [Cit.]” Hall v. Skate Escape, 171 Ga. App. 178, 180-181 ( 319 SE2d 67 ) (1984). 1986We agree. “[E]xculpatory clauses must be clear and unambiguous, they must be specific in what they purport to cover, and any ambiguity will be construed against the drafter of the instrument. [Cits.] The reason why exculpatory clauses should be explicit, prominent, clear and unambiguous, is that such an agreement amounts to a waiver of substantial rights, could be an accord and satisfaction of possible future claims, and requires a meeting of the minds on the subject matter. [Cit.]” Hall v. Skate Escape, 171 Ga. App. 178, 180-181 ( 319 SE2d 67 ) (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Garbuttgreen2 sentences1984See Henderson v. Garbutt, 121 Ga. App. 291, 292 ( 173 SE2d 445 ). 1984See Henderson v. Garbutt, 121 Ga. App. 291, 292 ( 173 SE2d 445 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Transportation v. Arapaho Construction, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 180 Ga. App. 341, 343 (1) ( 349 SE2d 196 ) (1986), aff’d, Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 257 Ga. 269 ( 357 SE2d 593 ) (1987). 2013(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 180 Ga. App. 341, 343 (1) ( 349 SE2d 196 ) (1986), aff’d, Dept. of Transp. v. Arapaho Constr., Inc., 257 Ga. 269 ( 357 SE2d 593 ) (1987). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
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.