Legal Opinion

Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Mayo

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 16, 1969No. 44547PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Quillian, Judge.

The sole question for our determination is whether the trial judge properly denied the motion to intervene. Counsel for the appellant correctly concedes that Ryder Truck is not allowed to intervene as a matter of right under the provisions of Code Ann, § 81A-124 (a) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 633; 1967, pp. 226, 232; 1968, pp. 1104, 1108). Thus, the only ground for the allowance of this intervention are contained in Code Ann. § 81A-124 (b) which provides: “Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. Third Nat. Bank in NashvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Allgood v. GEORGIA MARBLE COMPANYSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  2. Morton v. SkrineSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
  3. Autry v. PalmourCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  4. Barber & Barber, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Newton CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
  5. Mt. Paran Area Civic Ass'n v. CatesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API