Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Great Southwest Express Co. v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 16, 2008No. A08A0625, A08A0626Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRuffin, Presiding Judge

Because I do not agree with the majority that the tortious interference claim can be resolved against Southwest as a matter of law, I am compelled to dissent to Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion.

Since the Civil Practice Act has been enacted, it is no longer necessary that a complaint be perfect in form or set out each issue *762with particularity; rather, a complaint must only place the defendant on notice of the claim.4 Here, in its amended complaint, Southwest alleged “that prior to [Great American’s] wrongful and tortious acts, [Southwest] had an ongoing business relationship with…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. J. Kinson Cook of Georgia, Inc. v. Heery/MitchellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
  2. Southern Guaranty Insurance v. DowseSupreme Court of Georgia · 2004
  3. Kirkland v. TamplinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
  4. Gantt v. Patient Communications Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  5. Dwyer v. McCoyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999

6 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