Legal Opinion

SLOSBERG v. GILLER

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 30, 2022No. S21G1226PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

314 Ga. 89

FINAL COPY S21G1226. SLOSBERG v. GILLER et al. WARREN, Justice. Georgia law permits a settlor or testator to include in his trust instrument or will an “in terrorem clause.” “In terrorem” is a Latin phrase that means “in order to frighten,” and this type of clause, which is also known as a “no-contest clause,” is “[a] provision designed to threaten one into action or inaction; esp[ecially], a testamentary provision that threatens to dispossess any beneficiary who challenges the terms” of the legal instrument. See In Terrorem, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); No-contest…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. City Dodge, Inc. v. GardnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
  2. Terry v. BuffingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  3. Tidwell v. CritzSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  4. INNOVATIVE IMAGES, LLC v. SUMMERVILLESupreme Court of Georgia · 2020
  5. Lanier v. LanierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Denisha Semaj JohnsonUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 2025
  2. HUGH DAVID PETERSON v. CLEVELAND CALHOUN PETERSON AS FOR THE ESTATE OF MARY JEANNETTE WILLCOXON PETERSONCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2025
  3. Jennifer Duncan v. Olga RawlsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2023
  4. Kent Christensen, et al. v. Leann Renee Galliway, et al.District Court, D. Arizona · 2026
  5. Suzanne Giller v. Robert SlosbergCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2023

1 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