Contract Harvesters, Inc. v. Mead Coated Board, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Eldridge, Judge.
Appellant, Contract Harvesters, Inc. (“Contract Harvesters”), appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees, Mead Coated Board, Inc. (“Mead”) and Sam Rigdon.
To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Summary judgment appeals are de novo reviews because summary judgment rulings are strictly matters of law…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lau's Corp., Inc. v. HaskinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1991
- Chancellor v. Gateway Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- In the Interest of C. W.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Jenkins v. BriceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1998
- Dyer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of Columbus v. BarngroverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- Fleming v. U-Haul Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
- Bassett v. Jasper Banking Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2006
- Chaney v. BlackstoneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001