Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sutlive v. Hackney

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 23, 1982No. 63970Published

1DissentDeen, Presiding Judge

Generally I am in agreement with what is said in the majority opinion relating to the statute of limitations.

However, I do not agree that, against a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff alleged or proved fraud. The existence of confidential relations between the parties, such as existed here, does not mean that the relationship will toll the statute of limitations whether or not fraud exists, but only that the victim has reason to rely upon the person who committed the fraudulent misconduct, and is therefore not charged with a duty of exercising the degree of care to discover the fraud…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Shipman v. Horizon CorporationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
  2. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  3. Blount v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  4. Leagan v. LevineCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  5. Marlin v. HillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941

3 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