Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

A final grant of summary judgment is directly appealable under subsection (h), and the appeal may also obtain review of prior rulings affecting the proceedings.

Saik v. Brown · filed 2020-07-13(h)

The order granting summary judgment on this claim is directly appealable. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). ... Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and the Browns’ motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore denied.

Subsection (h) makes an order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party directly appealable.

Lewis v. Chicago Title Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-10(h)

pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), “[a]n order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.”

A grant of summary judgment may be appealed directly, and related interlocutory evidentiary rulings may be challenged in that direct appeal.

Donald Brian Chybicki in His Capacity as Surviving Spouse of Sandra Kay Cothern Chybicki v. Coffee Regional Medical Cent · filed 2021-01-25(h)

However, we note that the plaintiffs apparently have filed a timely direct appeal, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), of the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Nurse Myra Marie Belk and Coffee Regional Medical Center, Inc.

A grant of summary judgment is directly appealable, allowing review of other case rulings that affect proceedings below.

Leary v. Perdue Farms, Inc · filed 2021-03-24(h)

But the grant of a motion for summary judgment is directly appealable, OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), and once a direct appeal is taken, “all judgments, rulings, or orders rendered in the case which are raised on appeal and which may affect the proceedings below shall be reviewed and determined by the appellate court, without regard to the appealability of the judgment . . . standing alone[.]” OCGA § 5-6-34 (d).

An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable, and related rulings affecting proceedings below may be reviewed in that appeal.

Isaac v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2021-12-10(h)

A direct appeal is proper from an “order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party[.]” OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); accord Andrews v. Blue Ridge NH Assocs., LLC, 353 Ga. App. 75, 77 & n. 6 (1) (836 SE2d 197) (2019).

A partial summary-judgment grant is directly appealable under subsection (h), and that appeal permits review of all rulings in the same order and other nonfinal rulings affecting the case.

City of Woodstock, Ga v. Hunt · filed 2022-03-31(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of partial summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. ... Moreover, all rulings within that order and any other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of such a direct appeal.

Subsection (h) makes a summary-judgment grant directly appealable, so a duplicative discretionary application is unnecessary when a direct appeal is already pending.

Bcg Operations, LLC v. Town of Homer, Georgia · filed 2022-04-06(h)

Because the local administrative agency never issued a decision on the merits of BCG’s application, it appears that the order BCG seeks to appeal is directly appealable. OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) (“An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.”). ... However, BCG’s direct appeal renders this application superfluous, and the application is hereby DISMISSED.

Subsection (h) makes a partial summary-judgment grant directly appealable, but the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of that grant.

Harmon v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 2022-06-06(h)

The law permits, however, a direct appeal from certain non-final orders, including the grant of partial summary judgment. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). In order to appeal the grant of summary judgment, Harmon was required to file her notice of appeal within 30 days of the summary judgment ruling. ... Because Harmon did not file her notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, that ruling cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon us.

A subsection (h) summary-judgment appeal must be filed within 30 days, and a motion for reconsideration neither tolls that deadline nor creates a separately appealable order.

JAMES v. WATERS EDGE CONSTRUCTION, LLC · filed 2022-06-27(h)

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment is reviewable by direct appeal. ... James did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the grant of summary judgment. Instead, she filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the motion did not extend the time to appeal from the underlying order, and the order resolving it is not subject to direct appeal.

A subsection (h) summary-judgment appeal must be filed within 30 days, and a motion for reconsideration neither tolls that deadline nor creates a separately appealable order.

SIMON DINKINS, JR. v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC. · filed 2022-07-19(h)

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment is reviewable by direct appeal. ... The Plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of the grant of summary judgment. Instead, they filed a motion for reconsideration. However, the motion did not extend the time to appeal from the underlying order, and the order resolving it is not subject to direct appeal.

An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal, permitting related attorney-fee rulings to accompany that appeal.

Modi v. India-American Cultural Association · filed 2022-08-25(h)

Additionally, an order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is also reviewable by direct appeal.

A partial summary-judgment grant is directly appealable under subsection (h), and that appeal permits review of other rulings affecting the still-pending case.

City of Winder v. Barrow County · filed 2022-10-28(h)

This appeal is a direct appeal from a grant of partial summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). Although this case remains pending for resolution below, “when a direct appeal is taken, any other judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case and which may affect the proceedings below may be raised on appeal and reviewed and determined by the appellate court.”

Subsection (h) makes a summary-judgment grant on any issue or party directly appealable and permits review of other rulings affecting the proceedings.

Dekalb County School District v. Dekalb Agriculture Technology and Environment, Inc. · filed 2022-11-16(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. ... In addition, “any other judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case and which may affect the proceedings below” may be challenged as part of such a direct appeal.

A partial summary-judgment grant is directly appealable under subsection (h), and all rulings in that order and other nonfinal rulings may be reviewed with it.

Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company v. the Onionman Company, LLC · filed 2023-01-17(h)

“An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). Moreover, all rulings within that order and any other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of such a direct appeal. ... Thus, Nationwide is essentially seeking to appeal the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, which is directly appealable.

Subsection (h) makes an order granting summary judgment directly appealable.

Francis v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2024-10-24(h)

Generally, an order granting summary judgment is directly appealable.

The option under subsection (h) to defer appealing a partial summary judgment does not apply when the trial court grants summary judgment in full.

Rampersad v. the Plantation at Bay Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. · filed 2025-06-17(h)

As a result, the trial court’s order is properly characterized as granting summary judgment to the HOA in full. It follows that a party’s option to pursue, at a later time, an appeal from a partial grant of summary judgment was not available to Rampersad. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

Subsection (h) makes an order granting summary judgment directly appealable without a discretionary application.

Foreman v. Lowe · filed 2025-08-21(h)

No discretionary application is required, however, as: (i) the July 9 order is directly appealable as either a final judgment, see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), or an order granting summary judgment, see OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); and (ii) this action does not appear to fall within one of the categories of cases for which a discretionary application is required to seek appellate review under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a).

Subsection (h) does not make an order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction directly appealable merely because the court considered outside evidence, since only a failure-to-state-a-claim motion can convert to summary judgment.

ATUNZU v. GABLE X, LTD · filed 2025-09-19(h)

Generally, an order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). But only motions made under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, can be converted into a motion for summary judgment.

Subsection (h) makes a grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party directly appealable.

Meneses v. Riverside Military Academy, Inc., D/B/A Riverside Preparatory Academy · filed 2026-03-23(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56(h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal.

Subsection (h) permits the party against whom summary judgment was entered to appeal directly even when claims remain pending below.

Davis v. Bunn · filed 2026-04-27(h)

Specifically, OCGA § 9-11-56(h) gives “the party against whom summary judgment has been entered the right to a direct appeal from an order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party even though the judgment is not final.”

Section 9-11-56(h) makes an order granting summary judgment directly appealable.

Brown v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · filed 1999-11-18(h)

An order granting summary judgment is directly appealable.

Subsection (h) does not make a denial of summary judgment directly appealable in a nonfinal case.

Cancel v. Sewell · filed 2013-03-29(h)

The case is not final, and the denial of Sewell’s, Tarabadkar’s, and McDonald’s motion for summary judgment is not directly appeal-able.

A grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable, together with other rulings in the same order and prior nonfinal rulings.

Oldroyd v. Williams · filed 2023-05-01(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal.

A grant of partial summary judgment authorizes a direct appeal and permits review of other case orders affecting proceedings below.

MERCY HOUSING GEORGIA, III L.P. v. MICHAEL JOHN KAAPA · filed 2023-05-30(h)

The trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence per se authorized this direct appeal as well as the consideration of all other orders entered in the case.

Subsection (h) authorizes a direct appeal from an order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party.

MULLALLY v. CU CAPTIAL MARKETING SOLUTIONS · filed 2023-06-30(h)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) authorizes a direct appeal from “[a]n order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party[.]”

Subsection (h) makes a grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party directly appealable without a discretionary application.

Pollard v. Great Dane LLC D/B/A Great Dane Trailers · filed 2023-09-28(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. ... Thus, Jacquelyn was not required to file an application to obtain review of the order in question.

A partial summary-judgment grant is directly appealable under subsection (h), and other rulings in the same order may be raised in that direct appeal.

Southeast Centerline, Inc. v. Howze · filed 2023-11-30(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. ... Moreover, all rulings within that order and any other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of such a direct appeal. ... Because the trial court granted Howze’s motion for partial summary judgment, the order is directly appealable and Southeast was not required to file these applications for interlocutory appeal.

A grant of partial summary judgment is directly appealable without a certificate under subsection (h), but denial requires the interlocutory-appeal procedure.

First National Bank v. Ferrell · filed 1977-05-12(h)

An order denying summary judgment must be appealed in accordance with Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2. In this case the bank failed to comply with the requirements for an interlocutory appeal. For this reason, we cannot review the denial of the bank’s motion for summary judgment. This court has held that appeal by certificate is the only method whereby the denial of a motion for summary judgment may be reviewed. See Blease v. Blease, 238 Ga. 651 (1977); and Marietta Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840 (229 SE2d 753) (1976). We turn now to the grant of partial summary judgment against the bank pertaining to the Wadley Street property. This is an appealable judgment without a certificate under Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h).

An appeal from an order denying summary judgment requires an application for discretionary interlocutory review within ten days after certification.

Goolsby v. Oakes · filed 1978-01-06(h)

That Code section, as amended, provides that an order denying summary judgment shall be subject to review by appeal in accordance with the provisions of Code § 6-701 (a) 2. The latter Code section provides that when an interlocutory decision which is not subject to direct appeal is certified by the trial judge, this court may, in its discretion, "... permit an appeal to be taken from such order, decision or judgment, if application is made thereto within 10 days after such certificate is granted.” No application to this court’s discretion was made and, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.

Under subsection (h), a grant of partial summary judgment is directly appealable without a certificate, while a denial requires a certificate and permission for immediate review.

Jack V. Heard Contractors, Inc. v. A. L. Adams Construction Co. · filed 1980-06-27(h)

This was not a final judgment and leaves the action pending below but is directly appealable under Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h) without a certificate of immediate review under Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2 (A).

A denial of summary judgment is reviewable only by direct interlocutory appeal supported by the trial judge's certificate and an application to the appropriate appellate court.

American Mutual Fire Insurance v. Llewellyn · filed 1977-07-13(h)

There is no provision for review of the denial of the summary judgment in Code Ann. §§ 81A-156 (h) or 6-701 (a) 2 (A), except by direct appeal with a certifícate of the trial judge and an application for review to the appropriate appellate court.

A denial of summary judgment is not directly appealable and may be reviewed only through the interlocutory-appeal procedure.

Johnston-Willis Hospital, Inc. v. Cain · filed 1977-05-13(h)

The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not subject to review by direct appeal except on the grant of permission to appeal as set out in Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2.

Section 56(h) does not permit an appeal from a certified order denying summary judgment unless the appellant makes the required application for interlocutory review.

Century Builders, Inc. v. Carter · filed 1979-01-05(h)

The order denying appellants’ motion for summary judgment was certified by the trial court, but no application was made in accordance with Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2. Accordingly, the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h); Ga. Central Credit Union v. Cole, 239 Ga. 870 (239 SE2d 37) (1977).

A denial of summary judgment is not directly appealable and requires compliance with the interlocutory-appeal procedure.

Northside Cleaners, Inc. v. Paleologou · filed 1982-10-08(h)

This appeal from the denial of summary judgment was filed without compliance with the statutory procedures for interlocutory appeal. Since the denial of summary judgment is not directly appealable under Code Ann. § 6-701, this appeal must be dismissed. Bell v. Rodgers, 158 Ga. App. 507 (281 SE2d 647); Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h).

An order denying summary judgment is not appealable unless the statutory interlocutory-appeal procedure is followed.

Shipp v. World Automotive, Inc. · filed 1977-11-17(h)

An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable where the procedure set forth in Code § 7-201 (a) 2 is not followed. Code § 81A-156 (h); Bank of Commerce v. Williams, 138 Ga. App. 666 (227 SE2d 95).

An order denying summary judgment is directly appealable only through the interlocutory-appeal procedure, which requires both a timely trial-court certificate and an appellate order granting the appeal.

Hargraves v. Turner · filed 1982-01-05(h)

An order granting summary judgment as to any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by direct appeal, but an order denying summary judgment shall be subject to review by direct appeal only in accordance with the provisions of Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) 2 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18; 1968, pp. 1072, 1073; 1975, pp. 757, 758; 1979, pp. 619, 620). See Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; 1975, pp. 757, 759).

After a case has been tried and judgment entered, denial of summary judgment is moot and will not be reviewed on appeal.

National Carloading Corp. v. Security Van Lines, Inc. · filed 1982-11-16

After trial and judgment a denial of summary judgment will not be reviewed since such denial becomes moot when the court reviews the evidence upon the trial of the case.

A denial of summary judgment becomes moot and unreviewable after the case proceeds to verdict and judgment.

Stone Mountain Pool Supply Company v. Imperial Pool Company · filed 1984-02-01(h)

“ ‘After verdict and judgment, it is too late to review a judgment denying a summary judgment, for that judgment becomes moot when the court reviews the evidence upon the trial of the case.’ [Cit.]”

A denial of summary judgment is not reviewable after the case has proceeded to trial and judgment.

George v. D'ANGELO · filed 1984-05-15

enumerations of alleged trial errors, but will not also review the denial of the motion for summary judgment.”

A party who initiates an immediate appeal under section 56(h) but commits a procedural default fatal to that appeal cannot seek review of the same summary judgment after final judgment.

Mitchell v. Oliver · filed 1985-03-15(h)

Therefore, we hold that a losing party on summary judgment who puts the machinery of immediate appellate review under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) into motion, yet commits a procedural default fatal to his appeal, is foreclosed from thereafter resubmitting the matter for review on appeal of the final judgment.

Section 56(h) does not allow review of a party’s denied summary-judgment motion as an ancillary issue when that party lacks a viable direct appeal from the order favoring a co-defendant.

Shackelford v. Green · filed 1986-09-30(h)

Absent a viable ancillary direct appeal, this court would then lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of appellant’s own motion for summary judgment.

Denials of summary judgment on a separate cross-claim cannot be reviewed with a direct appeal from a grant on the main claim when the orders are not tied together.

Fulton v. Pilon · filed 1991-06-04(h)

Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional basis for an appellate review of the denials of the cross-motions for summary judgment and Burroughs’s and Pilon’s appeals must be dismissed.

Subsection (h) permits a direct appeal from a grant of summary judgment, but a denial must follow the interlocutory-appeal procedure.

Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. · filed 1993-02-18(h)

The grant of a motion for summary judgment is directly appealable, but the denial of a motion for summary judgment must be appealed in accordance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

A denial of summary judgment generally may be appealed only through the application procedure under subsection (h) and the interlocutory-appeal statute.

Schirmer v. Amoroso · filed 1993-06-24(h)

A denial of summary judgment is generally appealable only by application pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-56 (h) and 5-6-34 (b).

A grant of summary judgment is directly appealable, but a denial must be reviewed through the interlocutory-appeal procedure.

Davis v. Copelan · filed 1994-12-05(h)

The grant of a motion for summary judgment is directly appealable, but the denial of a motion for summary judgment must be appealed in accordance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

A party losing cross-motions may seek interlocutory review of the denial or, alternatively, directly appeal the opposing party's grant under subsection (h); neither route is exclusive.

Southeastern Security Insurance v. Empire Banking Co. · filed 1997-10-06(h)

As the losing party on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the Insurer was entitled to proceed under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to seek an interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to file a direct appeal from the grant of the Bank’s motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

Subsection (h) requires a party seeking review of the denial of summary judgment to use the interlocutory-appeal process rather than a direct appeal.

International Indemnity Co. v. Robinson · filed 1998-03-16(h)

While a grant of summary judgment is ... subject to direct appeal, OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), which governs the appeal of a denial of a motion for summary judgment, allows the losing party to take advantage of the foregoing interlocutory appeal process.

Subsection (h) makes an order granting summary judgment directly appealable, while an order denying summary judgment requires interlocutory review under § 5-6-34(b).

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Crenshaw · filed 2013-03-22(h)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) provides: “An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal. An order denying summary judgment shall be subject to review by direct appeal in accordance with subsection (b) of Code Section 5-6-34.”

An order that only denies summary judgment is not directly appealable under subsection (h); absent a clearly granted partial judgment, the appellant must follow interlocutory-appeal procedures.

West Asset Management, Inc. v. Nw Parkway, LLC · filed 2013-11-01(h)

Given the foregoing, West was not authorized to file a direct appeal from the November 30, 2012 Order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). In order to appeal the denial of its motion for partial summary judgment, it was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).

A bare denial of summary judgment on sovereign-immunity grounds is interlocutory and appealable only through certified interlocutory review, but a partial summary-judgment grant in the same order makes the judgment directly appealable.

State of Georgia v. International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. · filed 2016-07-05(h)

A mere denial of summary judgment on the ground of sovereign immunity is interlocutory, and it is appealable only if the trial court issues a certificate of immediate review and the appellant thereafter brings its appeal as provided in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).

A grant of summary judgment is directly appealable, but a denial remains interlocutory and requires compliance with interlocutory-appeal procedures.

Morris v. Mortgage Investment Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-08-21(h)

Furthermore, although a trial court’s order granting summary judgment may be appealed directly, the denial of a motion for summary judgment remains interlocutory. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); Parker v. Kennon, 235 Ga. App. 272, 272 (509 SE2d 152) (1998).

A denial of summary judgment must be reviewed through interlocutory-appeal procedures, including a certificate of immediate review.

W. A. Griffin v. Matthews · filed 2019-09-04(h)

However, the denial of a motion for summary judgment must be appealed in accordance with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assocs., 215 Ga. App. 438, 439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994).

A denial of summary judgment requires compliance with interlocutory-appeal procedures, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review.

White v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-10-25(h)

The denial of a motion for summary judgment, however, must be appealed in accordance with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assocs., 215 Ga. App. 438, 439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994); see also First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Ferrell, 239 Ga. 8, 9 (235 SE2d 507) (1977).

Under subsection (h), an order denying summary judgment is reviewable only through interlocutory-appeal procedures while the merits remain pending.

Bryan v. Bryan · filed 2021-06-15(h)

See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) (providing that an order denying summary judgment is subject to review by the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)).

An order denying summary judgment is not directly appealable under subsection (h) and requires interlocutory certification.

LONGE, LLC v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE GROUP · filed 2024-10-21(h)

An order denying summary judgment is subject to the certification requirement in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), and the trial court denied Auto-Owners’ motion for a certificate of immediate review of the summary judgment order. See id.; OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

A defendant may satisfy section 9-11-56 by showing that record materials reveal no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case.

Berson v. American Golf Corp. · filed 2004-02-23

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiffs case.

A defendant may obtain summary judgment under subsection (c) by pointing to an absence of evidence supporting at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.

Cramp v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. · filed 2004-03-03(c)

A defendant need not produce any evidence to obtain summary judgment, but must only point to an absence of evidence supporting at least one essential element of the plaintiffs claim.

A defendant satisfies subsection (c) by demonstrating an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Miller v. Lomax · filed 2004-03-04(c)

A defendant carries this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence as to one essential element of the plaintiffs case. Should the defendant do so, the plaintiff “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the burden of presenting evidence supporting the claim and piercing the defendant’s affirmative defenses.

Smith v. Gordon · filed 2004-04-07

Where the movant is the plaintiff, she has the burden of presenting evidence to support her claim and the burden of piercing the defendant’s affirmative defenses.

A defendant satisfies subsection (c) by demonstrating an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Edwards v. Grapefields, Inc. · filed 2004-04-14(c)

A defendant carries this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence as to one essential element of the plaintiffs case. Should the defendant do so, the plaintiff “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

A summary-judgment movant bears the burden of showing both the absence of any genuine material factual issue and entitlement to judgment under substantive law.

Kaplan v. Krosco, Inc. · filed 1983-06-28(e)

“The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issues of material facts which under applicable principles of substantive law entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show both the absence of genuine material factual issues and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ray v. Standard Fire Insurance · filed 1983-09-08

Our scrutiny of the record discloses that appellee fulfilled his burden of showing that there remain no genuine issues of material fact and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Section 9-11-56 places the initial burden on the movant to show that no material factual issue exists.

Thomasson v. Pineco, Inc. · filed 1985-03-12

OCGA § 9-11-56 places the burden on the moving party to show that no material issues of fact exist.

A plaintiff seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing the absence of every genuine material factual issue.

Williams v. Calhoun · filed 1985-07-08(c)

Plaintiff, in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, must show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). She has not done so.

A movant carries its summary-judgment burden by submitting undisputed evidence establishing the absence of any genuine material factual issue and its right to recover as a matter of law.

Hub City Atlanta Terminals, Inc. v. Expert Freight Brokerage, Inc. · filed 1985-11-15

Having submitted undisputed evidence that Hub Atlanta incurred the alleged account indebtedness, Expert has met its burden on summary judgment of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and its right to recover as a matter of law.

The decisive question on summary judgment is whether the movant shows both the absence of any genuine material factual issue and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Brown v. Rowe · filed 1986-03-10

The decisive question in determining the propriety of the grant of summary judgment is whether appellee has carried the burden imposed by OCGA § 9-11-56 in showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

An insurer moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing no factual issue over whether the vehicle was insured for purposes of the no-fault statute.

Smith v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance · filed 1988-02-25(c)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) places the burden on the moving party to show that no material issues of fact exist and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. When an insurance carrier moves for a summary judgment, it must shoulder the burden of showing that no factual issues exist concerning whether the vehicle was insured for purposes of the no-fault statute.

A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Thomas B. Hartley Construction Co. v. Liberty Life Insurance · filed 1988-06-22

It was the appellee who moved for summary judgment on the issue; and, on motion for summary judgment the burden is, of course, on the movant to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

The timeliness of an opponent's response is immaterial when the movant's own evidence is insufficient to support summary judgment.

Hill v. Loren · filed 1988-04-04(e)

The evidence relied upon by Hill, consisting of the record and transcript of the probate court hearing, was insufficient to support his motion for summary judgment. Therefore, regardless of the timeliness of appellee Loren’s brief in response to the motion for summary judgment, Hill was not entitled to summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A summary-judgment movant with firsthand transaction knowledge must produce evidence negating the opponent’s material defense.

First Union National Bank v. J. Reisbaum Co. · filed 1989-01-03(c)

We can conceive of no reason why Reisbaum would not have been in as good a position as First Union to come forward with evidence on this issue, given that, as between the two of them, it was the only one directly involved in the transaction and thus the only one with firsthand knowledge of what goods were shipped.

A summary-judgment respondent has no burden until the movant proves that no genuine material factual issue exists.

Liberty Life Insurance Company v. Thomas B. Hartley Construction Company Inc. · filed 1989-01-19

There is no burden on the buyer, as respondent, until the seller proves the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact.

A movant who demonstrates the absence of a genuine material factual issue is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Lynburn Enterprises, Inc. v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation · filed 1989-05-04(c)

Defendant carried its burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, defendant was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A movant seeking judgment on lack of actual knowledge must pierce the pleadings by negating actual knowledge throughout the relevant group of employees.

Whelchel v. Laing Properties, Inc. · filed 1989-01-23(c)

The affidavits by Laing employees contained in this record are insufficient to pierce the pleadings as to this issue.

A movant is not entitled to judgment when genuine material issues remain.

Abalene Pest Control Service, Inc. v. Orkin Exterminating Co. · filed 1990-06-25

Accordingly, because appellants, as the parties moving for summary judgment, failed to carry their burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of their liability for breach of the warranty in paragraph 3.09 (a) as to the Fort Edward property, the trial court properly denied their motion for summary judgment.

The opponent's duty to produce counterevidence arises only after the movant carries the initial burden of piercing the pleadings.

Stone v. Dayton Hudson Corp. · filed 1989-11-30(e)

Thus, “[i]f the movant does not carry the initial burden, the opposing party is not required to produce any counter evidence.”

Section 56 requires absence of a genuine material issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

Webb v. Rushing · filed 1990-03-06

Appellees’ evidence pierced the allegations of appellants’ pleadings and appellants have not raised questions of fact as to the elements of scienter relative to pest infestation and justifiable reliance relative to roof defects.

A shifted summary-judgment burden requires the opponent to produce rebuttal evidence.

Collier v. Powell · filed 1990-07-02

Appellant presented no evidence to support his allegations concerning the appellee’s role in having his car towed. Therefore, the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment and granting appellee summary judgment.

A movant carries the summary-judgment burden by piercing the opponent's allegations, negating an essential element, and establishing that no genuine material factual issue remains.

Weldon v. DEL TACO CORPORATION · filed 1990-01-04(c)

We have examined the entire record of the instant case, including the affidavits and depositions of appellant and of two eyewitnesses to the incident, and are persuaded that appellee has successfully carried its burden of piercing appellant’s allegations, negating at least one essential element of her case, and thereby establishing that no genuine issues of material fact remain in the case. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56(c) places on the movant the burden to show that the full record leaves no material factual issue.

Kievman v. Kievman · filed 1991-02-01(c)

Rather, the burden is on the movant to show that, after a consideration of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and affidavits, no material issues of fact remain. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56(c) puts the burden on the movant and resolves doubts and favorable inferences for the opponent.

Kelly v. Vargo · filed 1991-06-20(c)

The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue as to any material fact and the right to a judgment as a matter of law.

An opponent need not produce counteraffidavits until the movant first offers proof establishing a prima facie right to summary judgment.

Barber v. Threlkeld Ford · filed 1991-05-28(e)

But “counter affidavits or proof are required only when movant has offered proof.”

Summary judgment is unavailable when the record does not establish the fact necessary to determine whether a contractual indemnity provision covers the claim.

MARTIN & JONES PRODUCE, INC. v. Lundy · filed 1990-09-05(c), (d)

Since the bank’s claim existed prior to the contract of purchase and sale, it would appear the claim would fall under the provisions of paragraph 4.1, but nothing in the record proves that this claim, in fact, was encompassed within that paragraph.

A nonmovant need not submit affirmative evidence until the movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement after consideration of all record materials.

NORTHSIDE BUILDING SUPPLY COMPANY v. Foures · filed 1991-09-19(c), (e)

Here, it was not necessary for the defendant to submit affirmative evidence in order to create a genuine issue of fact because the evidence plaintiff presented did not establish a prima facie case entitling plaintiff to summary judgment.

The movant bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment before the opponent must present rebuttal evidence.

Ellis v. Curtis-Toledo, Inc. · filed 1992-06-04(c)

The movant has the original burden of making this showing.

Under subsection (c), the movant bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of fact exists, and all doubts are resolved against the movant.

Hoffman v. Atlanta Gas Light Co. · filed 1992-11-24(c)

The burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact is upon Plantation and Atlanta Gas Light as movants for summary judgment, and all doubts are resolved against them.

A party seeking summary judgment must establish both the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Horn v. Gilley · filed 1993-05-03(c)

The record does not “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [appellant] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

The summary-judgment movant bears the burden to establish both the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to recover as a matter of law.

Dixieland Truck Brokers, Inc. v. International Indemnity Co. · filed 1993-09-01(c)

On motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the movant, International, to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and its right to recover as a matter of law.

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must conclusively establish the absence or nonexistence of every defense before subsection (e) requires the opponent to identify a triable issue.

Morris & Manning Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Morris · filed 1993-11-12(e)

(O)n motion for summary judgment the burden was upon the plaintiff, as movant, to conclusively establish the absence or nonexistence of any defense.

A movant's affidavit stating only that the witness does not remember an event does not establish the event did not occur or eliminate a genuine factual issue.

Riley v. H & H OPERATIONS · filed 1993-12-03(e)

The burden on summary judgment is on the movant to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). ... To say “I don’t remember” does not establish that a fact did not exist or an event did not occur.

A movant is not entitled to summary judgment under subsection (c) when disputed material factual issues remain.

Williams v. Southern General Insurance · filed 1994-02-07(c)

Southern General has not met its burden of showing that there is no disputed issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in its favor.

The summary-judgment movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of every genuine factual issue even on issues for which the opponent would bear the burden at trial.

SAWGRASS BUILDERS, INC. v. Key · filed 1994-02-18(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). “On a motion for summary judgment the burden of establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party and all doubts are to be resolved against the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden.”

When the movant would not bear the trial burden on a defense, the absence of competent evidence supporting that defense permits summary judgment if no genuine material factual issue remains.

Smith v. State · filed 1995-08-16(a), (b)

Since there was no competent evidence in support of Mrs. Smith’s claimed defense of settlement, a position for which the State of Georgia as the movant for summary judgment would not bear the burden of proof at trial, the superior court correctly determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the State of Georgia is entitled to revive the federal judgment.

A summary-judgment movant bears the burden of establishing both the absence of a genuine material factual issue and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Atlanta-East, Inc. v. Tate Mountain Associates, Inc. · filed 1995-10-16(c)

Tate Mountain, as the movant, had the burden to establish that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant relying on an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving that defense, and an insufficient supporting affidavit does not shift a burden to the nonmovant.

Jones v. Littlejohn · filed 1996-08-15(c)

In the present case, Jones relies on the doctrine of intra-military immunity, which is an affirmative defense, for which he has the burden of proof at trial.

A summary-judgment movant asserting forgery bears the burden of proving that the signature is unauthentic and, if so, unauthorized, even when the holder would bear that burden at trial.

Southtrust Bank of Georgia v. Parker · filed 1997-04-28

On motion for summary judgment the movant, who asserts forgery as a defense, has the burden of proof that the signature is not authentic and, if so, not authorized, even though the respondent holder in due course would have such burden at trial.

The summary-judgment movant bears the burden of eliminating genuine factual issues even on matters the opposing party would have to prove at trial, and all doubts are resolved against the movant.

Lane v. Tift County Hospital Authority · filed 1997-09-17

On a motion for summary judgment the burden of establishing the nonexistence of any genuine issue of fact is upon the moving party and all doubts are to be resolved against the movant. The movant has that burden even as to issues upon which the opposing party would have the trial burden.

Subsection (c) bars summary judgment on a statute-of-limitation defense when the movant has not shown when the claim matured and evidence creates a jury issue on tolling.

Green v. White · filed 1997-10-28(c)

In this case, White has not shown when Green’s fraud claim matured. Moreover, for the same reasons stated in Division 1 (b), a jury issue exists regarding whether White’s alleged conduct tolled the limitation period governing Green’s fraud claim. ... Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting White summary judgment on this ground.

On summary judgment, a defendant relying on privilege must establish as a matter of law that the challenged statements were privileged.

Baskin v. Rogers · filed 1997-11-06

On summary judgment the issue is simply whether defendant. . . established as a matter of law that he made privileged statements.

A movant carries the summary-judgment burden when undisputed evidence leaves no genuine factual issue requiring jury resolution.

Phillips & Sons Logging, Inc. v. Pioneer Machinery, Inc. · filed 1998-04-14

Because the evidence is undisputed that the $15,000 downpayment was part of the sale price and that the appellants owed it and did not pay it, Pioneer carried its burden as movant for summary judgment of demonstrating that there was no genuine issue of fact requiring jury resolution.

A summary-judgment movant bears the burden of showing that no genuine factual issues exist for jury resolution.

Nebraska Plastics, Inc. v. Harris · filed 1999-02-17

We agree with Nebraska Plastics that summary judgment was erroneously granted in favor of CEFG. To prevail on summary judgment, the movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issues of fact exist for jury resolution.

The summary-judgment movant bears the burden to establish the absence of a genuine material factual issue and a right to judgment as a matter of law, while the opponent receives every favorable inference and doubt.

Good Ol' Days Commissary, Inc. v. Longcrier Family Ltd. Partnership I · filed 1999-09-02(c)

On motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the movant, [the Partnership], to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and its right to recover as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); ... The party opposing the motion, [the Commissary], is entitled to all favorable inferences and the benefit of every doubt, and the evidence is construed most strongly in its favor.

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must establish that no genuine issue exists as to each affirmative defense.

Sequoia Residential Roofing, Inc. v. Hanlake I, LP · filed 2001-01-03

[0]n plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, it was [Hanlake’s] burden to establish the non-existence of a genuine issue of fact as to each affirmative defense.” ... Accordingly, this Court finds that Hanlake was ... not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate the absence of a jury issue as to whether it assumed the risk of damage to its property.

A summary-judgment movant must establish a prima facie case under evidence construed for the nonmovant before any evidentiary burden shifts.

Young v. Faulkner · filed 2001-10-11(c)

The movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law unless, construing the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, the movant shows a prima facie case. ... Unless and until the movant meets this initial burden, no evidentiary burden shifts to the nonmovant.

A summary-judgment movant that offers no evidence supporting recovery fails to establish entitlement to judgment.

AFLAC INC. v. Chubb & Sons, Inc. · filed 2003-03-14(e)

AFLAC failed to support its motion for summary judgment by any evidence which would give rise to a genuine issue of material fact supportive of its recovery under the policies in issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A summary-judgment movant may prevail either by negating an essential element of the plaintiff's case or by showing an absence of evidence supporting an essential element.

Moss v. Hudson & Marshall, Inc. · filed 2004-05-07

On motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the movant may prevail by (1) submitting evidence which negatives an essential element of the plaintiffs case, or (2) showing the absence of evidence supporting the case as to any essential element.

A summary-judgment movant may discharge its burden by identifying record materials showing an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant's case.

Morris v. Gavin, Inc. · filed 2004-06-10(c)

The moving party may discharge its burden by pointing out by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.

A summary-judgment movant may carry subsection (c)'s burden either by negating an essential claim element or by demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting it.

Cieplinski v. Caldwell Electrical Contractors, Inc. · filed 2006-07-05(c)

The moving party may carry this burden either by (1) presenting evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, i.e., affirmatively disproving the element with evidence which makes it impossible for the nonmoving party to prove the element at trial; or (2) demonstrating an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.

A summary-judgment movant may discharge subsection (c)'s burden by citing affidavits, depositions, and other record evidence showing no evidence supporting the nonmovant's case.

Gilley v. Hudson · filed 2007-03-06(c)

The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence of record showing no evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. Id.

A summary-judgment movant may discharge subsection (c)'s burden by demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case.

Smith v. Saulsbury · filed 2007-07-05(c)

The moving party may discharge his burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.

A summary-judgment movant may carry its burden either by negating an essential element of the nonmovant's claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting that element.

Smith v. Dabbs-Williams General Contractors, LLC · filed 2007-09-26(c)

The moving party may carry this burden either by (1) presenting evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, i.e., affirmatively disproving the element with evidence which makes it impossible for the nonmoving party to prove the element at trial; or (2) demonstrating an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.

A movant may obtain summary judgment by showing the record lacks evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on an essential element of the plaintiff's case or every defense asserted in the answer.

Automated Print, Inc. v. Edgar · filed 2007-11-08(c)

The movant may do this by showing that the documents, affidavits, depositions, and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of either the plaintiffs case or all defenses asserted in the answer of the defendant.

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Irvin International, Inc. v. Riverwood International Corp. · filed 2009-08-07(c)

To ... prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), the moving party must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant bears the burden of establishing that no genuine factual issue exists, including as to an asserted real-party-in-interest defense, and doubts are resolved against the movant.

Wirth v. CACH, LLC · filed 2009-10-15(c)

To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, Cach, as movant, has the burden of “establishing the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact,” including Wirth’s assertion that Cach is not the real party in interest, and “all doubts are to be resolved against [Cach].”

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the opposing party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Banks v. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2009-11-17(c)

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Steed v. Federal National Mortgage Corp. · filed 2009-12-30

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Consolidated Pipe & Supply Co. v. Genoa Construction Services, Inc. · filed 2010-02-10(c)

To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant who bears the burden of proof at trial cannot rely merely on the absence of evidence disproving its position.

Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina v. Johnson · filed 2010-03-08(c)

The burden of proof as to whether this exemption is applicable lies with the party claiming it, and there is no burden on the opposing party to prove that [the motor vehicle] is not within the exemption. Although at summary judgment a party who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not conclusively prove the opposite of each element of the non-moving party’s case, here [Occidental] has the burden of proof [with respect to the exemption] and ... cannot merely rely upon the absence of evidence in the record disproving that the exemption applies.

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Anstadt v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System Ga. · filed 2010-03-25(c)

To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Sabellona v. Albert Painting, Inc. · filed 2010-04-28

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Wolf v. Middleton · filed 2010-07-28

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Barnard v. Turner County · filed 2010-09-28

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Conklin v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co. · filed 2010-10-13

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must present evidence supporting the claim and pierce the defendant's affirmative defenses.

Hampton Island, LLC v. HAOP, LLC · filed 2010-10-21(c)

To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. Where the movant is the plaintiff, she has the burden of presenting evidence to support her claim and the burden of piercing the defendant’s affirmative defenses.

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law when the facts are viewed most favorably to the opposing party.

Taylor v. Waldo · filed 2011-03-08(c)

To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” when looking at ... the facts in the light most favorable to the other party. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Coe v. Carroll & Carroll, Inc. · filed 2011-03-25

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, ... the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Georgia Primary Bank v. Atlanta Paving, Inc. · filed 2011-06-10

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Campbell v. SAVANNAH MOTORS, INC. · filed 2011-08-23(c)

To obtain summary judgment, “the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmov-ing party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).”

Subsection (c) requires the moving party to show both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

U. S. Lawns, Inc. v. Cutting Edge Landscaping, LLC · filed 2011-09-15(c)

To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Sipple v. Newman · filed 2012-01-12

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under ... OCGA § 9-11-56, ... the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed favorably to the nonmovant, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Weller v. Blake · filed 2012-03-27

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant's favor, demand judgment as a matter of law.

Peterson v. Reeves · filed 2012-03-30

In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must show that there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demand judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

The Medical Center, Inc. v. Knight · filed 2012-07-03

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Knight v. Roberts · filed 2012-07-03

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

cooper/t.smith Stevedoring Company v. State of Ga · filed 2012-07-09(c)

“[T]he moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991); see also OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Carter v. Riggins · filed 2013-08-23(c)

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, “the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).”

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Sims v. Bayside Capital, Inc. · filed 2014-03-25(c)

[T]he moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” ... see also OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Kelley v. Randolph · filed 2014-09-22(c)

To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A summary-judgment movant may carry its burden by negating an essential element of the nonmovant's claim or demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting an essential element.

Wpd Center, LLC v. Watershed, Inc. · filed 2014-11-21

The moving party on summary judgment may carry this burden by affirmatively presenting evidence which negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or by demonstrating the absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Amah v. Whitefield Academy, Inc. · filed 2015-03-18

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Precious Elekima v. Abbey Road Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2015-03-19

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the opponent warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Dolan v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2015-07-08(c)

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Little-Thomas v. Select Specialty Hospital-Augusta, Inc. · filed 2015-07-08

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Under subsection (c), a summary-judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and that undisputed facts viewed favorably to the opponent warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Parrish v. Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC · filed 2015-07-08(c)

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).