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 2 courts 1997–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Avery v. City of Talladega, Alabamagreen1 sentence2023“A valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”9 8 Cf. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 642 (2) ( 595 SE2d 339 ) (2004) (explaining that although a municipal employee’s claim referred to the FLSA, it sounded in contract); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F3d 1337, 1347-1348 (II) (E) (11th Cir. 1994) (persuasive authority) (allowing state-law br | 1 | 1 |
Sexual Offender Registration Review Board v. Berzettgreen1 sentence2023See Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga. 696, 703 (1) ( 572 SE2d 553 ) (2002). “[T]he proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those rights among parties upon which their future conduct depends.” Sexual Offender Registration Review Bd. v. Berzett, 301 Ga. 391 , 393 2 We note that the professors name the State of Georgia as the only defendant, and they claim that the State has waived sovereign immunity as to their constitutional challenge, based on an amendment to the judicial review paragraph, adding Art. | 1 | 1 |
Gwinnett County v. Blaneygreen2 sentences2023See Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga. 696, 703 (1) (572 SE2d 553) (2002). “[T]he proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those 2 We note that the professors name the State of Georgia as the only defendant, and they claim that the State has waived sovereign immunity as to their constitutional challenge, based on an amendment to the judicial review paragraph, adding Art. 2023See Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga. 696, 703 (1) (572 SE2d 553) (2002). “[T]he proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those 2 We note that the professors name the State of Georgia as the only defendant, and they claim that the State has waived sovereign immunity as to their constitutional challenge, based on an amendment to the judicial review paragraph, adding Art. | 1 | 1 |
Board of Regents of the University System v. Doegreen2 sentences2023“A valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”9 8 Cf. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 642 (2) ( 595 SE2d 339 ) (2004) (explaining that although a municipal employee’s claim referred to the FLSA, it sounded in contract); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F3d 1337, 1347-1348 (II) (E) (11th Cir. 1994) (persuasive authority) (allowing state-law br 2023“A valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”9 8 Cf. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 642 (2) ( 595 SE2d 339 ) (2004) (explaining that although a municipal employee’s claim referred to the FLSA, it sounded in contract); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F3d 1337, 1347-1348 (II) (E) (11th Cir. 1994) (persuasive authority) (allowing state-law br | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. City of Atlantagreen2 sentences2023“A valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”9 8 Cf. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 642 (2) ( 595 SE2d 339 ) (2004) (explaining that although a municipal employee’s claim referred to the FLSA, it sounded in contract); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F3d 1337, 1347-1348 (II) (E) (11th Cir. 1994) (persuasive authority) (allowing state-law br 2023“A valid written contract may be formed when there are multiple, signed, contemporaneous agreements between the parties which demonstrate their intent to enter into a binding contract and the individual documents, considered together, include all of the necessary terms of a contract.”9 8 Cf. Willis v. City of Atlanta, 265 Ga. App. 640, 642 (2) ( 595 SE2d 339 ) (2004) (explaining that although a municipal employee’s claim referred to the FLSA, it sounded in contract); Avery v. City of Talladega, Ala., 24 F3d 1337, 1347-1348 (II) (E) (11th Cir. 1994) (persuasive authority) (allowing state-law br | 1 | 1 |
Weaver v. City of Statesborogreen2 sentences2021“The doctrine of sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, protects all levels of governments from legal action unless they have waived their immunity from suit.”4 Sovereign immunity applies to the Board.5 However, the State has waived sovereign immunity for breach of a written contract.6 “General rules of contract law that might otherwise support a claim for breach of contract damages between private parties . . . will not support a claim against the state or one of its agencies if the contract is not in writing so as to trigger the waiver of sovereign immunity.”7 That is becau 2021“The doctrine of sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, protects all levels of governments from legal action unless they have waived their immunity from suit.”4 Sovereign immunity applies to the Board.5 However, the State has waived sovereign immunity for breach of a written contract.6 “General rules of contract law that might otherwise support a claim for breach of contract damages between private parties . . . will not support a claim against the state or one of its agencies if the contract is not in writing so as to trigger the waiver of sovereign immunity.”7 That is becau | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences2021System of Ga., 262 Ga. 413, 414 (3) ( 419 SE2d 916 ) (1992). 6 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. 2021System of Ga., 262 Ga. 413, 414 (3) ( 419 SE2d 916 ) (1992). 6 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. | 1 | 1 |
Colon v. Fulton Countygreen2 sentences2017But contrary to the trial court's ruling, there is nothing in those Code sections that "specifically created a right of action against the government that would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity, and [that] expressly stated that an aggrieved party is entitled to collect money damages from the government in connection with a successful claim under the statute [.]" Colon , 294 Ga. at 95-96 (1), 751 S.E.2d 307 . 2017But contrary to the trial court's ruling, there is nothing in those Code sections that "specifically created a right of action against the government that would otherwise be barred by sovereign immunity, and [that] expressly stated that an aggrieved party is entitled to collect money damages from the government in connection with a successful claim under the statute [.]" Colon , 294 Ga. at 95-96 (1), 751 S.E.2d 307 . | 1 | 1 |
Horne v. City of Cordelegreen2 sentences1997The original complaint also makes reference to the Act, and asserts, among other things, that service was effected thereunder. [4] OCGA § 9-11-16(b); see Horne v. City of Cordele, 254 Ga. 346, 347 , 329 S.E.2d 134 (1985). [5] Gregory, Georgia Civil Practice § 3-10, p. 325 (1990); see Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., et al., 121 Ga.App. 362, 366 , 173 S.E.2d 741 (1970). [6] Gregory, supra, at 326; Ruskill & McIntosh, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 16-3, pp. 350-51 (1986). [7] OCGA § 9-11-16(a); see Uniform Superior Court Rules 7.1 and 7.2. [8] In re: Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, 1997The original complaint also makes reference to the Act, and asserts, among other things, that service was effected thereunder. [4] OCGA § 9-11-16(b); see Horne v. City of Cordele, 254 Ga. 346, 347 , 329 S.E.2d 134 (1985). [5] Gregory, Georgia Civil Practice § 3-10, p. 325 (1990); see Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., et al., 121 Ga.App. 362, 366 , 173 S.E.2d 741 (1970). [6] Gregory, supra, at 326; Ruskill & McIntosh, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 16-3, pp. 350-51 (1986). [7] OCGA § 9-11-16(a); see Uniform Superior Court Rules 7.1 and 7.2. [8] In re: Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, | 1 | 1 |
In Re Control Data Corporation Securities Litigationgreen1 sentence1997The original complaint also makes reference to the Act, and asserts, among other things, that service was effected thereunder. [4] OCGA § 9-11-16(b); see Horne v. City of Cordele, 254 Ga. 346, 347 , 329 S.E.2d 134 (1985). [5] Gregory, Georgia Civil Practice § 3-10, p. 325 (1990); see Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., et al., 121 Ga.App. 362, 366 , 173 S.E.2d 741 (1970). [6] Gregory, supra, at 326; Ruskill & McIntosh, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 16-3, pp. 350-51 (1986). [7] OCGA § 9-11-16(a); see Uniform Superior Court Rules 7.1 and 7.2. [8] In re: Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, | 1 | 1 |
Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co.green2 sentences1997The original complaint also makes reference to the Act, and asserts, among other things, that service was effected thereunder. [4] OCGA § 9-11-16(b); see Horne v. City of Cordele, 254 Ga. 346, 347 , 329 S.E.2d 134 (1985). [5] Gregory, Georgia Civil Practice § 3-10, p. 325 (1990); see Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., et al., 121 Ga.App. 362, 366 , 173 S.E.2d 741 (1970). [6] Gregory, supra, at 326; Ruskill & McIntosh, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 16-3, pp. 350-51 (1986). [7] OCGA § 9-11-16(a); see Uniform Superior Court Rules 7.1 and 7.2. [8] In re: Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, 1997The original complaint also makes reference to the Act, and asserts, among other things, that service was effected thereunder. [4] OCGA § 9-11-16(b); see Horne v. City of Cordele, 254 Ga. 346, 347 , 329 S.E.2d 134 (1985). [5] Gregory, Georgia Civil Practice § 3-10, p. 325 (1990); see Berger v. Plantation Pipeline Co., et al., 121 Ga.App. 362, 366 , 173 S.E.2d 741 (1970). [6] Gregory, supra, at 326; Ruskill & McIntosh, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 16-3, pp. 350-51 (1986). [7] OCGA § 9-11-16(a); see Uniform Superior Court Rules 7.1 and 7.2. [8] In re: Control Data Corp. Securities Litigation, | 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 Human Resources v. Phillips
neutral
2 sentences1997NOTES [1] OCGA § 50-21-20, et seq. (1994). [2] 223 Ga.App. 520 , 478 S.E.2d 598 (1996). [3] We note that, consistent with the statement in the pretrial order that the Act's damages cap applies to Phillips' claim, Phillips' trial memorandum, filed the same day as the pretrial order, states: This case is brought under the provisions of OCGA § 50-21-20, et seq., "The Georgia Tort Claims Act." Pursuant to applicable provisions of the State Tort Claims Act, the State has waived sovereign immunity for the torts of State officers and employees while acting in the scope of their official duties or emp 1997NOTES [1] OCGA § 50-21-20, et seq. (1994). [2] 223 Ga.App. 520 , 478 S.E.2d 598 (1996). [3] We note that, consistent with the statement in the pretrial order that the Act's damages cap applies to Phillips' claim, Phillips' trial memorandum, filed the same day as the pretrial order, states: This case is brought under the provisions of OCGA § 50-21-20, et seq., "The Georgia Tort Claims Act." Pursuant to applicable provisions of the State Tort Claims Act, the State has waived sovereign immunity for the torts of State officers and employees while acting in the scope of their official duties or emp | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.