Legal Opinion

Wright v. Cofield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 11, 2012No. A12A0080PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Doyle, Presiding Judge.

This appeal arises from a business dispute between Carl Wright and several Defendants, including Charles Cofield and Russell Neuman. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Defendants on the ground that the alleged oral contract was too vague to be enforceable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Ade novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Matjoulis v. Integon General Ins. Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  2. Christensen v. Roberds of Atlanta, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  3. Phillips & Co. v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  4. Cary v. NeelCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  5. McKenna v. Capital Resource Partners, IV, L.P.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2007

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Advertising JV, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
  2. Benjamin K. Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Advertising Jv, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
  3. Think Development Systems, Inc. v. Cloudious, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API