Legal Opinion
Kicklighter v. Kicklighter
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided June 8, 1961No. 21229PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Mobley, Justice.
This court, in the recent decision of Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Brackin, 215 Ga. 225 (109 SE2d 782), stated: “It was there said [Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872, 901, 43 SE 280] that proving a case as laid will not authorize a recovery unless the case as laid so authorizes; that mere proof of a fact will not in law authorize a recovery unless tlie existence of such fact so' authorizes, and that a failure to demur does not confess a cause of action either in law or in fact. To the same effect, see O’Connor v. Brucker, 117 Ga. 451 (43 SE 731); Goff v. First Nat. Bank of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- O'Connor v. BruckerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Owenby v. StancilSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. BrackinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
- Thomas v. LambertSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Maloy v. Planter's Warehouse & Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Moody v. Nides Finance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- Jackson's Mill & Lumber Co. v. HollidayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Gustafson v. Cotco Enterprises, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1974
- City of Atlanta v. WestCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.