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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Kraft, Inc. v. Abad.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kraft, Inc. v. Abad Anchor | green | “ocga 9-11-41 (b) and superior court rule 14 both contain permissive language. under either provision the court may dismiss an action without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to appear at the call of the case.” | 3 |
| 2 | Ector v. Unison Insurance | green | “it was plaintiff's responsibility to appear at the call or contact the court to clarify the status of the case in the absence of a continuation order” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.