Great Southwest Express Co. v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- J. Kinson Cook of Georgia, Inc. v. Heery/MitchellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Southern Guaranty Insurance v. DowseSupreme Court of Georgia · 2004
- Kirkland v. TamplinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Gantt v. Patient Communications Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
- Dwyer v. McCoyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.