Legal Opinion
Neal H. Howard & Associates, P.C. v. Carey & Danis, LLC
District Court, M.D. Georgia
Decided February 11, 2003No. 4:02-cv-00051Published
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
LAND, District Judge.
The Court presently has pending before it Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be tried regarding Defendants’ accord and satisfaction defense, and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises from a fee dispute between two law firms, Neal H. Howard & Associates, P.C., (“Howard & Associates”) and Carey & Danis, LLC (“Carey & Dan-is”). 1 Carey & Danis, a Missouri law firm, served as…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Golden Peanut Co. v. BassCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- Thompson v. HechtCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.