O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2 — Leading Cases | Syfert Law

Leading cases: O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2

Cited in 750 cases (77 in the last 5 years, 1982–2026). ← Read the statute text
Envision Printing, LLC v. Evans (2016) gactapp · cites it 10× “Finally, if the ambiguity remains after applying the rules of construction, the issue of what the ambiguous language means and what the parties intended must be resolved by a jury.”
Capital Color Printing, Inc. v. Ahern (2008) gactapp · cites it 12× “See also OCGA § 13-2-2. Such is the case here. As Ahern and Heflin acknowledge, the customer whose debts are being guaranteed can only be either Quality Printing or Ahern and Heflin individually, based on the appearance of their names in the box captioned "CUSTOMER.”
Kreimer v. Kreimer (2001) ga · cites it 12× “OCGA § 13-2-2 (4). OCGA § 13-2-2 (2). OCGA § 13-2-2 (4).”
Schwartz v. Schwartz (2002) ga · cites it 12× “OCGA § 13-2-2 (4). OCGA § 13-2-2 (2). McKie v.”
Parkside Center, Ltd. v. Chicagoland Vending, Inc. (2001) gactapp · cites it 16× “Thus, the jury does not become involved in the process, even if the contract is difficult to construe, until there appears an ambiguity in the contract which cannot be resolved by the trial court's application of the rules of construction set forth in part in OCGA § 13-2-2.…”
Lunceford v. Peachtree Casualty Insurance (1997) gactapp · cites it 20× “See OCGA § 13-2-2, which sets out general rules concerning contract construction.”
Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Smith (2016) ga · cites it 4× “Words used in the policy are given their “usual and common” meaning, see OCGA § 13-2-2 (2), and the policy “should be read as a layman would read it and not as it might be analyzed by an insurance expert or an attorney.”
Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance (2004) ga · cites it 16× “385 ( 414 SE2d 521 ) (1991); OCGA § 13-2-2 (2). See OCGA § 13-2-2 (4).”
Ronald Lee v. Mercury Insurance Company of Georgia (2017) gactapp · cites it 8× “See OCGA § 13-2-2 (6).12 In that case, the contract provision at issue stated: “‘In case of destruction of our mills, in whole or in part, or stoppage by strikes or other causes, we reserve the right to cancel all or any part of this contract; and the company reserves the right…”
Woody's Steaks, LLC v. Pastoria (2003) gactapp · cites it 6× “The relevant provisions are: ' [I] f Tenant defaults in fulfilling any of the other covenants of this Lease, or upon its failure to perform any of the other terms of this Lease to be observed and performed by Tenant, .”
Livoti v. Aycock (2003) gactapp · cites it 10× “OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). See Thomas v. B & I Lending, 261 Ga.”
FPI Atlanta, L.P. v. Seaton (1999) gactapp · cites it 12× “OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). “Any other parties” should be given its usual and common meaning in this situation: someone to whom the landlord owed a duty under OCGA § 51-3-1, who had a possessory right to be on the premises and were on the premises, and whose property would be on the…”
Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. v. Estate of Pitts (2012) ga · cites it 6× “The Court of Appeals began its analysis by looking to a dictionary for the accepted definition of “participant,” and that was a good place to start, inasmuch as we generally accept that contractual terms carry their ordinary meanings, OCGA § 13-2-2 (2), and a dictionary is a…”
Smith v. Persichetti (2000) gactapp · cites it 28× “Even if we assume that the contract is ambiguous, as Smith contends, the rules of construction contained in OCGA § 13-2-2 support the trial court's finding that the $125,000 down payment should be returned.”
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Neisler (2015) gactapp · cites it 6× “at 660 (2); see also OCGA § 13-2-2. Michna, 288 Ga. App. at 114 ; see also Hurst v.”
Langley v. Mp Spring Lake, LLC (2019) ga · cites it 4× “” (punctuation and footnote omitted)); OCGA § 13-2-2 (5) (“If the construction is doubtful, that which goes most strongly against the party executing the instrument .”
Ace American Insurance Company v. The Wattles Company (2019) ca11 · cites it 5× “Although it is true that "[w]ords generally bear their usual and common signification," it is also true that "technical words, words of art, or words used in a particular trade or business will be construed, generally, to be used in reference to this peculiar meaning.”
Krogh v. PARGAR, LLC (2005) gactapp · cites it 8× “Trial courts must follow a three-step process for resolving issues of contract construction: The trial court must first decide whether the contract language is ambiguous; if it is *38 ambiguous, the trial court must then apply the applicable rules of construction (OCGA §…”
Patton v. Vanterpool (2017) ga · cites it 4× “OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). As for interpretations of statutes, our case law recognizes that sometimes “the facts of [a] case[ ] .”
Estate of Pitts v. City of Atlanta (2013) gactapp · cites it 8× “26, 2011) (using term “participant” in manner suggesting it may have specific meaning in context of Owner’s Controlled Insurance Program).”