green
Positive treatment
21.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JERMAINE WALLACE v. CITY OF ATLANTA
“Stated differently, although under the ‘right for any reason’ rule this court will affirm the correct ruling of a trial court on grounds not addressed below, we do not apply a ‘wrong for any reason’ rule to reverse incorrect rulings on issues not raised or ruled upon in the trial court.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Safe Shield Workwear, LLC v. Shubee, Inc.
Compliance with the settlement agreement was the issue addressed in the May 2008 sanctions order; the August 2008 partial summary judgment order focused solely on whether the four specified provisions of the settlement agreement were ambiguous and enforceable. 4 Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 829 (2) ( 573 SE2d 389 ) (2002). 5 Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847-848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004). 6 These include, for example, Safe Shield’s arguments that paragraph 5 (K) and Appendix B were ambiguous, and that these two provisions constituted undue restrictions on …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Venzen
While we will apply the “right for any reason rule” to correct a trial court’s ruling on grounds not addressed below (Gaston v. State, 257 Ga. App. 480, 483 (2) ( 571 SE2d 477 ) (2002)), “we do not apply a ‘wrong for any reason’ rule to reverse incorrect rulings on issues not raised or ruled upon in the trial court.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847-848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
ANSLEY CLANTON v. WILLIE B. TAYLOR
(2×)
See Designs Unlimited, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004) (noting that “under the ‘right for any reason’ rule this [C]ourt will affirm the correct ruling of a trial court on grounds not addressed below . . .”). 23 354 Ga. App. 78 . 11 service by publication until four months after the statute of limitations expired.24 And despite those circumstances, we reversed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for service by publication and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff exercised due diligence in determining whether …
discussed
Cited "see"
Grady A. Roberts III v. First Georgia Community Bank
See Horesh v. DeKinder, 295 Ga. App. 826, 830 (1) ( 673 SE2d 311 ) (2009) (a prevailing party cannot collect on or enforce a judgment until the judgment is entered in compliance with OCGA § 9-11-58 (b)). 6 King v. GenOn Energy Holdings, 323 Ga. App. 451, 452 (1) ( 747 SE2d 15 ) (2013) (citation omitted). 7 Alston & Bird LLP v. Mellon Ventures II, 307 Ga. App. 640, 648 (6) (b) ( 706 SE2d 652 ) (2010) (punctuation and footnote omitted); see generally Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 *231 Ga. App. 847-848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004); Lowery v. Atlanta Heart Assoc., 266 Ga. App. 402, 404-405 (2) (…
discussed
Cited "see"
Grady A. Roberts III v. First Georgia Community Bank
(2×)
P., 307 Ga. App. 640, 648 (6) (b) ( 706 SE2d 652 ) (2010) (punctuation and footnote omitted); see generally Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847 -848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004); Lowery v. Atlanta Heart Assoc., P. C., 266 Ga. App. 402, 404-405 (2) ( 597 SE2d 494 ) (2004). 5 Appellants failed to object below about the order to compel and for sanctions, and “thus did not give the trial court opportunity to correct the alleged error.”8 A party “may not idly sit by and watch when possible error is presented and on appeal claim error.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carlo Larose v. Bank of America, N. A.
(2×)
See Designs Unlimited, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004). 4 Larose], including but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property . . . .” Thus, we find persuasive the cases from the Northern District of Georgia holding that such language grants MERS the power of assignment: [Larose] unequivocally authorized MERS’s involvement in the transaction by executing a security deed in its favor.
discussed
Cited "see"
Larose v. Bank of America, N.A.
(2×)
See Designs Unlimited, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004).
examined
Cited "see"
CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY, INC. v. Williams
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Bishop, supra. See Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847-848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Atlanta v. Landmark Environmental Industries, Inc.
(2×)
I. 22 181 Ga. App. 672 ( 353 SE2d 603 ) (1987). 23 Id. at 677 (2). 24 Id. at 678 . 25 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Frank v. State of Ga., 257 Ga. App. 164, 167 (3) ( 570 SE2d 613 ) (2002); see generally Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004). 26 Supra. 27 Id. at 246 (1). 28 Id. 29 (Citations omitted.) Central Ga. Power Co. v. Pope, 141 Ga. 186 (2) ( 80 SE 642 ) (1913); see also City of Columbus v. Myszka, 246 Ga. 571, 573 (6) ( 272 SE2d 302 ) (1980); City of Warner Robins v. Holt, 220 Ga. App. 794, 796 (2) ( 470 SE2d 238 ) (1996). 30 See City of Gainesv…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ROBERT HOWELL v. CORY COCHRAN
(2×)
See also Designs Unlimited v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847, 847-848 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Colby Stanton v. Timberly Autumn Harris
(2×)
Compare Designs Unlimited, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 267 Ga. App. 847 ( 601 SE2d 381 ) (2004) (business waived appellate review of its argument that trial court failed to consider whether defendant could be subject to jurisdiction under different statute subpart when business did not raise argument in trial court). 4 with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Designs Unlimited, Inc.
v.
Rodriguez
v.
Rodriguez
A04A0089.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 15, 2004.
Barry L. Katz, for appellant., Aldo Rodriguez, pro se.
Miller, Andrews, Ellington.
Cited by 14 opinions | Published
Designs Unlimited, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing its complaint against Aldo Rodriguez d/b/a Pitusa Furniture (“Rodriguez”). The trial court determined that Rodriguez, a Florida resident, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Georgia pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-91 (1). In its sole enumeration on appeal, Designs Unlimited argues for the first time that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether Rodriguez could be subject to jurisdiction under OCGA § 9-10-91 (2). Since Designs Unlimited failed to raise this argument below and the trial court’s ruling was accordingly limited to only whether Rodriguez was subject to jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA§ 9-10-91 (1), Designs Unlimited has waived any argument relating to its asserted enumeration. Indeed,
[o]ur appellate courts are courts for the correction of errors of law committed in the trial court. Routinely, this Court refuses to review issues not raised in the trial court. To consider the case on a completely different basis from that presented below would be contrary to the line of cases holding, “He must stand or fall upon the position taken in the trial court.” Fairness to the trial court and to the parties demands that legal issues be asserted in the trial court.
(Citation omitted.) Lowery v. Atlanta Heart Assoc., 266 Ga. App. 402, 404 (2) (597 SE2d 494) (2004). Stated differently, “[although under the ‘right for any reason’ rule this court will affirm the correct ruling of a trial court on grounds not addressed below, we do not apply a[*848] ‘wrong for any reason’ rule to reverse incorrect rulings on issues not raised or ruled upon in the trial court.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at 404-405 (2). Accordingly, we discern no error here and affirm.
Judgment affirmed.