Legal Opinion

Cornelius v. Auto Analyst, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided August 28, 1996No. A96A1477PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Smith, Judge.

Auto Analyst, Inc. brought this action against James Cornelius on an unsecured promissory note. Cornelius answered pro se and counterclaimed. He later sought to add various counterclaims and to bring in an additional party. Auto Analyst moved for summary judgment on its claim and the original counterclaims and to strike the additional counterclaims. The trial court granted these motions and denied Cornelius’s discovery-related motion as moot. Cornelius brings this pro se appeal from the grant of Auto Analyst’s motions and the denial of his discovery motion.

The record reveals that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Moses v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  2. East River Savings Bank v. SteeleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  3. Kitchens v. LoweCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  4. Rivers v. BMW of North America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
  5. Yarbrough v. SAS Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1992

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Ellen T. Harris v. H & W Contracting CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
  2. Bellamy v. Federal Deposit InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
  3. Lowery v. Atlanta Heart Associates, P.C.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2004
  4. Hackett v. Fulton County School DistrictDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2002
  5. Cook v. Covington Credit of Georgia, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2008

12 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