Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Clark v. Byrd
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 28, 2002No. A01A2422, A01A2423, A01A2424Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAndrews, Presiding Judge
While I concur in Division 2 of the majority opinion and agree that Nestlehutt, Allstate and Hinds were entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Superior Ins. Co. v. Dawkins, 229 Ga. App. 45 (494 SE2d 208) (1997), I must respectfully disagree with Division 1, because I believe that Byrd and State Auto were also entitled to summary judgment on Count 4, the fraud count, Division 1 (a); no argument was made below on promissory estoppel, Division 1 (b);1 and Clark is not entitled to reformation of the release under the facts here, Division 1 (c).
The release signed by Clark on November 11, 1997,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mauldin v. WeinstockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
- Bass v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Conklin v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Wheat v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Dixon v. DixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.