Legal Opinion

Hudgens v. Broomberg

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 21, 1992No. S92G0173, S92G0182PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Weltner, Presiding Justice.

We granted certiorari in Broomberg v. Hudgens, 201 Ga. App. 524 (411 SE2d 521) (1991), to consider:

Whether the rule in Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27 (343 SE2d 680) (1986), is limited, as the Court of Appeals holds, to testimony “originally given ... in the actual case.”

1. In Prophecy, supra, we reaffirmed the “contradictory testimony rule,” and held that the trial court must determine, in each case, whether the testimony of a party comes within that rule.1

2. The Court of Appeals held:

In order to require, as a matter of law, that a party’s…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1986
  2. Broomberg v. HudgensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Thompson v. EzorSupreme Court of Georgia · 2000
  2. Scoggins v. Arrow Trucking Co.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2000
  3. Ezor v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
  4. Colevins v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
  5. Feely v. First American BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1992

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API