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.
5 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1915–1997 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Dairyland Insurancegreen2 sentences1997Co., 130 Ga.App. 228, 229 , 202 S.E.2d 698 (1973). 1997Co., 130 Ga.App. 228, 229 , 202 S.E.2d 698 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
Henderson v. Swift Fertilizer Worksgreen2 sentences1918See also Henderson v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 16 Ga. App. 448 ( 85 S. E. 613 ), and cases there cited; Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard, 19 Ga. App. 368 (3) ( 91 S. E. 444 ). 1918See also Henderson v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 16 Ga. App. 448 ( 85 S. E. 613 ), and cases there cited; Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard, 19 Ga. App. 368 (3) ( 91 S. E. 444 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co.
green
2 sentences1918Such a motion must show that the movant “has a good and meritorious defense to the action, not merely by so alleging, but by setting forth fully the facts which constitute the proposed defense, except in cases where the judgment is absolutely void, when no defense need be shown.” Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ). 1918Such a motion must show that the movant “has a good and meritorious defense to the action, not merely by so alleging, but by setting forth fully the facts which constitute the proposed defense, except in cases where the judgment is absolutely void, when no defense need be shown.” Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ). | 3 | 1915–1973 |
Georgia Highway Express Company v. Do-All Chemical Company
green
2 sentences1973Georgia Highway *230 Express Co. v. Do-All Chemical Co., 118 Ga. App. 736 ( 165 SE2d 429 ); Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 SE 312 ). 1973Georgia Highway *230 Express Co. v. Do-All Chemical Co., 118 Ga. App. 736 ( 165 SE2d 429 ); Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 SE 312 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard
neutral
2 sentences1918See also Henderson v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 16 Ga. App. 448 ( 85 S. E. 613 ), and cases there cited; Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard, 19 Ga. App. 368 (3) ( 91 S. E. 444 ). 1918See also Henderson v. Swift Fertilizer Works, 16 Ga. App. 448 ( 85 S. E. 613 ), and cases there cited; Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard, 19 Ga. App. 368 (3) ( 91 S. E. 444 ). | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Ford v. Clark
green
2 sentences1915Civil Code, § 5656; Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ); Moss v. Anderson, 10 Ga. App. 784 -785 ( 74 S. E. 299 ); Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 ( 58 S. E. 818 ); 23 Cyc. 949-950-951. (a) The sole defense alleged and set up in the motion to set aside was: that “on or about the-day of-1913, petitioner called on the duly authorized agent of the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff in said ease, in Atlanta, Georgia, and on said date entered into a valid and binding agreement with the said plaintiff that the note sued upon in said case should be extended until Octo 1915Civil Code, § 5656; Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ); Moss v. Anderson, 10 Ga. App. 784 -785 ( 74 S. E. 299 ); Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 ( 58 S. E. 818 ); 23 Cyc. 949-950-951. (a) The sole defense alleged and set up in the motion to set aside was: that “on or about the-day of-1913, petitioner called on the duly authorized agent of the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff in said ease, in Atlanta, Georgia, and on said date entered into a valid and binding agreement with the said plaintiff that the note sued upon in said case should be extended until Octo | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Moss v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1915Civil Code, § 5656; Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ); Moss v. Anderson, 10 Ga. App. 784 -785 ( 74 S. E. 299 ); Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 ( 58 S. E. 818 ); 23 Cyc. 949-950-951. (a) The sole defense alleged and set up in the motion to set aside was: that “on or about the-day of-1913, petitioner called on the duly authorized agent of the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff in said ease, in Atlanta, Georgia, and on said date entered into a valid and binding agreement with the said plaintiff that the note sued upon in said case should be extended until Octo 1915Civil Code, § 5656; Pryor v. American Trust & Banking Co., 15 Ga. App. 822 ( 84 S. E. 312 ); Moss v. Anderson, 10 Ga. App. 784 -785 ( 74 S. E. 299 ); Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 ( 58 S. E. 818 ); 23 Cyc. 949-950-951. (a) The sole defense alleged and set up in the motion to set aside was: that “on or about the-day of-1913, petitioner called on the duly authorized agent of the Swift Fertilizer Works, the plaintiff in said ease, in Atlanta, Georgia, and on said date entered into a valid and binding agreement with the said plaintiff that the note sued upon in said case should be extended until Octo | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.