Legal Opinion

John Deere Construction & Forestry Co. v. Parham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 5, 2014No. A13A1948Published

1Opinion of the Court

McMlLLIAN, Judge.

John Deere Construction & Forestry Company (“Deere”) instituted a deficiency action against Carl S. Parham to recover the balance owed on a direct loan following the repossession and sale of a piece of farm equipment. After the parties stipulated to all material facts, Deere filed a motion for partial summary judgment, to which Parham filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, disputing the notice required prior to Deere’s sale of the repossessed equipment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Deere’s motion for summary judgment and granted Parham’s cross-motion for…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Benefield v. TominichCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2011
  2. Rigdon v. Walker Sales & Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  3. Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  4. Holder v. BrockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  5. Brown v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975

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