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 1996–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bodymasters Sports Industries, Inc. v. Wimberleygreen2 sentences2011See also Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 ( 516 SE2d 848 ) (1999) (discussing application of the open and obvious rule in the context of a failure to warn claim); Bodymasters Sports Indus, v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174-175 (2) ( 501 SE2d 556 ) (1998) (because plaintiff was aware of the danger she claims she should have been warned against, the failure to post signs warning of such danger could not have been the proximate cause of her injury). 5 See Daniels, 237 Ga. App. at 830 (warning not effective if the user is already aware of risk and a bystander cannot allege fa 2011See also Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 ( 516 SE2d 848 ) (1999) (discussing application of the open and obvious rule in the context of a failure to warn claim); Bodymasters Sports Indus, v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174-175 (2) ( 501 SE2d 556 ) (1998) (because plaintiff was aware of the danger she claims she should have been warned against, the failure to post signs warning of such danger could not have been the proximate cause of her injury). 5 See Daniels, 237 Ga. App. at 830 (warning not effective if the user is already aware of risk and a bystander cannot allege fa | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. ECI MANAGEMENTgreen1 sentence2011See also Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 ( 516 SE2d 848 ) (1999) (discussing application of the open and obvious rule in the context of a failure to warn claim); Bodymasters Sports Indus, v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174-175 (2) ( 501 SE2d 556 ) (1998) (because plaintiff was aware of the danger she claims she should have been warned against, the failure to post signs warning of such danger could not have been the proximate cause of her injury). 5 See Daniels, 237 Ga. App. at 830 (warning not effective if the user is already aware of risk and a bystander cannot allege fa | 1 | 1 |
Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp.green2 sentences2011See also Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 ( 516 SE2d 848 ) (1999) (discussing application of the open and obvious rule in the context of a failure to warn claim); Bodymasters Sports Indus, v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174-175 (2) ( 501 SE2d 556 ) (1998) (because plaintiff was aware of the danger she claims she should have been warned against, the failure to post signs warning of such danger could not have been the proximate cause of her injury). 5 See Daniels, 237 Ga. App. at 830 (warning not effective if the user is already aware of risk and a bystander cannot allege fa 2011See also Daniels v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 237 Ga. App. 828, 829 ( 516 SE2d 848 ) (1999) (discussing application of the open and obvious rule in the context of a failure to warn claim); Bodymasters Sports Indus, v. Wimberley, 232 Ga. App. 170, 174-175 (2) ( 501 SE2d 556 ) (1998) (because plaintiff was aware of the danger she claims she should have been warned against, the failure to post signs warning of such danger could not have been the proximate cause of her injury). 5 See Daniels, 237 Ga. App. at 830 (warning not effective if the user is already aware of risk and a bystander cannot allege fa | 1 | 1 |
McLean v. CONTINENTAL WINGATE CO., INC.green2 sentences1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra; 1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra; | 1 | 1 |
Raymond v. Amada Co., Ltd.green2 sentences1996In denying defendant-manufacturer's motion for summary judgment based on an open and obvious defense, the northern district in Raymond v. Amada Co., Ltd., 925 F.Supp. 1572 (N.D.Ga., 1996) observed that "the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision in Banks has impliedly overruled the open and obvious doctrine as applied to products liability design defect cases." But the court noted that its finding did not necessarily foreclose summary judgment in all products liability cases decided after Banks. 1996In denying defendant-manufacturer's motion for summary judgment based on an open and obvious defense, the northern district in Raymond v. Amada Co., Ltd., 925 F.Supp. 1572 (N.D.Ga., 1996) observed that "the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision in Banks has impliedly overruled the open and obvious doctrine as applied to products liability design defect cases." But the court noted that its finding did not necessarily foreclose summary judgment in all products liability cases decided after Banks. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1998Thereafter, in an unrelated case, Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co., 195 Ga.App. 169 , 393 S.E.2d 64 (1990), this Court overruled the rationale of Ogletree, finding that actual knowledge was not an element of the open and obvious rule and concluding that Ogletree was "predicated upon significant errors of law." Weatherby, supra at 170 , 393 S.E.2d 64 . 1998Thereafter, in an unrelated case, Weatherby v. Honda Motor Co., 195 Ga.App. 169 , 393 S.E.2d 64 (1990), this Court overruled the rationale of Ogletree, finding that actual knowledge was not an element of the open and obvious rule and concluding that Ogletree was "predicated upon significant errors of law." Weatherby, supra at 170 , 393 S.E.2d 64 . | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Glawson
green
2 sentences1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra; 1998Nonetheless, this Court reaffirmed the law of the case rule, relying on four Supreme Court cases including Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Glawson, 140 Ga. 507 , 79 S.E. 136 (1913), [4] and found that the trial court and appellate courts are bound by the earlier ruling in the case before it. "`The principle in the decision may be reviewed and overruled in another case between different parties, but as between the parties the decision stands as the law of the case, even though the ruling has been disapproved ... before the second appearance of the case in that court.' [Cits.]" Navistar, supra; | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Bodymasters contends that this defect was open and obvious, and that the trial court erred in holding that the open and obvious doctrine is no longer an absolute defense to a design defect claim following the Supreme Court’s decision in Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732 ( 450 SE2d 671 ) (1994). 1998Bodymasters contends that this defect was open and obvious, and that the trial court erred in holding that the open and obvious doctrine is no longer an absolute defense to a design defect claim following the Supreme Court’s decision in Banks v. ICI Americas, 264 Ga. 732 ( 450 SE2d 671 ) (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.