Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

A defendant may satisfy subsection (c) by negating an essential claim element or showing that the record lacks evidence supporting it.

Burton v. ECI Mgmt. Corp. · filed 2018-06-27(c)

A defendant may do this by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff's claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims.

A defendant without the trial burden may obtain summary judgment by identifying a record-wide absence of evidence on an essential claim element, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

PINNOCK v. KINGS CARLYLE CLUB APARTMENTS, LLC Et Al. · filed 2018-09-20

A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A defendant may satisfy subsection (c) by negating an essential claim element or showing that the record lacks evidence supporting it.

McBee v. Aspire at West Midtown Apartments · filed 2017-11-14(c)

to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, so that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A defendant may do this by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims.

A defendant may obtain summary judgment by negating an essential element or showing that the record lacks evidence supporting the claim, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Fun Spot America of Atlanta, Inc. v. Johnson · filed 2024-03-14

A defendant may do this by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims. ... If the defendant does so, the plaintiff “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

A defendant may obtain summary judgment by negating an essential element or showing that the record lacks evidence supporting the claim, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Ajigbolamu v. Milne · filed 2024-05-30(c)

A defendant seeking summary judgment may demonstrate this by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence in support of such claims. Where a defendant moving for summary judgment discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A defendant may meet its summary-judgment burden by negating an essential element or showing an absence of supporting evidence in the record, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Mueller Systems, LLC v. Sipco, LLC · filed 2025-03-10(c)

A defendant may do this by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims. Where a defendant moving for summary judgment discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A defendant may obtain summary judgment by negating an essential claim element or identifying an absence of supporting record evidence, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

KENG v. KENG · filed 2025-06-20(c)

A defendant [moving for summary judgment] may demonstrate that [s]he is entitled to summary judgment by either presenting evidence negating an essential element of the plaintiff[s’] claims or establishing from the record an absence of evidence to support such claims. Once the defendant has met this burden, the plaintiff[s] must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue or suffer summary judgment.

Under subsection (e), a party must respond to a prima facie showing negating its claim or suffer summary judgment.

Crisp v. First National Bank · filed 1977-01-13(e)

Since the bank made a prima facie showing of no conspiracy, plaintiff was required to respond or suffer judgment against him.

Under subsection (e), affidavits that pierce the defensive pleadings shift the burden of proof to the opposing party at the summary-judgment hearing.

Little v. Home Transportation Co. · filed 1977-04-18(e)

These affidavits, together with the stipulations contained in the pre-trial order, were enough to shift to the appellants the burden of proof at the summary judgment hearing. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e). Appellant filed nothing to counter the evidence of appellee.

Once a movant presents evidence establishing a prima facie right to summary judgment, the opponent must present rebuttal evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact.

Lawyers Title Insurance v. Noland Co. · filed 1976-10-22(e)

Thus, when one party supports its motion for summary judgment with affidavits, admissions of fact, or other evidentiary matter showing a prima facie right to summary judgment, it becomes the opponent’s duty to present rebuttal evidence through such media as depositions, affidavits, or interrogatories to show to the court that there is a genuine issue of material fact.

When a movant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the opponent to present specific rebuttal facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Columbus v. Outreach for Christ, Inc. · filed 1978-02-28(e)

The appellee made out a prima facie case that the property owned by it was used solely for religious worship, and was exempt from ad valorem taxation under Code Ann. § 92-201, as interpreted in Roberts v. Atlanta Baptist Assn., supra. The burden then shifted to the appellant to rebut this *4evidence, and to set forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. This the city did not do.

An issue ordinarily triable by a jury may be resolved on summary judgment when the movant makes a prima facie showing and the opponent fails to identify specific facts creating a genuine dispute.

Slaughter v. Ford Motor Credit Co. · filed 1982-10-26(c), (e)

The commercial reasonability of a sale of personalty under Code *429Ann. § 109A-9 — 504 is as appropriate a subject of summary judgment as any other issue triable by a jury. Ultimately the commercial reasonability of a sale of repossessed collateral may be a question of law; where the creditor shows prima facie that the sale was reasonable, to prevent summary judgment the debtor must support his challenge to the sale by asserting specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.

After a movant establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment, section 56(e) requires the opposing party to offer specific facts rather than a bare ownership assertion.

Young v. Hinton · filed 1982-09-10(e)

The bare assertion, however, that Walter Kollock “purchased the property and was the owner” does not set forth any specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, where the appellee had prima facie established that he was entitled to possession. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e).

A movant's affidavit that merely denies the opponent's allegation does not pierce the pleading or eliminate the factual dispute.

Stewart v. Boykin · filed 1983-03-08(c)

We disagree with the conclusion of the trial court that defendant’s affidavit pierced plaintiff s pleadings. We find that defendant’s statement that he mailed the application “as soon as practicable” did no more than meet plaintiffs allegation that he “had a duty to forward the application as soon as practical.” Defendant’s statement in his affidavit has no more effect than the denial of the allegation in his answer. The issue is still very much in dispute and therefore summary judgment was improper. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,660; 1967, pp. 226,238; 1975, pp. 757,759) (now OCGA § 9- 11-56 (c), effective November 1,1982).

Once a supported motion pierces the pleadings, the opponent must present evidence showing a genuine issue and cannot rely on the pleadings alone.

Spell v. Bible Baptist Church, Inc. · filed 1983-03-11(e)

Defendants thus pierced the allegations of the pleadings and the burden then was upon plaintiffs to refute this evidence or to at least produce sufficient evidence to show that a genuine issue existed. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) (formerly Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; 1975, pp. 757, 759)). Plaintiffs, however, neither filed any counter-affidavits nor presented any other evidence in response to defendants’ supported motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment against plaintiffs.

Summary judgment is proper after a movant pierces the complaint by showing no genuine material factual issue and the opponent fails to rebut that showing.

Lawrence v. Timber Products Inspection, Inc. · filed 1984-02-21

As appellee has pierced the allegations of appellant’s complaint by demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact concerning its breach of any duty owed to appellant, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Once the summary-judgment burden shifts, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to set forth definite facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.

Sparks v. Parks · filed 1984-12-03(e)

Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to set forth definite facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Summary judgment is proper when the record contains evidence piercing the complaint and the plaintiff produces no evidence supporting the allegation or creating a material factual issue.

Harris v. Star Service & Petroleum Co. · filed 1984-05-04

The record in this case demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact concerning appellee’s liability as a result of appellant’s slip and fall. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Once a defendant pierces the complaint, the plaintiff must produce rebuttal evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment.

Evans v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. · filed 1984-02-17

As Kaiser has pierced the allegations of the complaint concerning its liability to Evans and Evans has failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal creating a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court properly awarded summary judgment to Kaiser. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Once a movant pierces an essential element, section 56(e) requires the opponent to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Davis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1986-10-02(e)

appellant failed to carry his burden by setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Once a supported motion satisfies the movant's initial burden, the opponent must present specific facts rather than conclusory assertions to show a genuine issue for trial.

Tallman Pools of Georgia, Inc. v. James · filed 1986-11-18(e)

Response by mere conclusory statements is insufficient to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Once a movant pierces a complaint allegation, section 56(e) shifts the burden to the opponent to produce evidence showing a genuine issue remains.

Winn-Dixie of Greenville v. Ramey · filed 1988-02-16(e)

Once the allegation of appellees’ complaint had been pierced, the burden shifted to them to produce evidence which would show that a genuine issue remained as to the existence of the liquid substance on the floor. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Once a movant’s affidavit pierces a fraud allegation, section 56(e) requires the plaintiff to produce evidence showing a genuine trial issue.

Horton v. Middle Georgia Bank · filed 1989-03-15(e)

The affidavit of W. T. Harvey effectively pierced the allegations of fraud set forth in plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to come forward with evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the opponent must present rebuttal evidence or suffer judgment.

Phillips v. Plymale · filed 1989-04-14

At that time the opposing party must come forward with rebuttal evidence or suffer judgment against him.

Subsection (e) requires an opponent to a supported motion to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue rather than rely on a statement of unawareness.

International Business Consulting, Ltd. v. First Union National Bank of Georgia · filed 1989-09-06(e)

Rather than setting forth specific facts which show there is a genuine issue to be tried, appellant submitted only its officer’s statement that he was “not aware of any justification for services charges” imposed by appellee.

Once a railroad rebuts the statutory presumption of negligence with evidence of ordinary care, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to produce evidence creating a genuine issue without relying on the vanished presumption.

Houston v. GEORGIA NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. · filed 1989-11-27(e)

In view of defendant’s showing of ordinary care, it was up to plaintiff to show by the evidence that there remains a genuine issue for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). Moreover, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to make this showing without any aid from OCGA § 46-8-292.

After a railroad rebuts the statutory presumption of negligence with ordinary-care evidence, the plaintiff must produce evidence showing a genuine issue without relying on that presumption.

Wall v. Southern Railway Co. · filed 1990-07-03(e)

In view of [appellee’s] showing of ordinary care, it was up to [appellant] to show by the evidence that there remains a genuine issue for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Summary judgment is proper when unrebutted evidence establishes that the asserted basis for liability does not apply.

Bailey v. Butler · filed 1991-05-03

Because the unrebutted evidence established that the family purpose doctrine was inapplicable, the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment.

Once a summary-judgment movant establishes a prima facie case, the opponent must produce rebuttal evidence or suffer judgment.

Green v. Sun Trust Banks, Inc. · filed 1990-11-16

Once the moving party for summary judgment has carried its burden of making out a prima facie case, the burden shifts and the opposite party must come forward with rebuttal evidence or suffer judgment against him.

Once the movant makes a prima facie case, section 56(c) requires rebuttal evidence or judgment follows.

Jordan v. City of Rome · filed 1992-03-20(c)

Therefore, appellees were entitled to the grant of partial summary judgment on this allegation. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Once a summary-judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the opposing party must produce evidence showing a genuine factual issue.

Southern General Insurance v. Davis · filed 1992-07-16(e)

The burden in resisting summary judgment was shifted to Davis to show that Park was not the John Doe operator of the vehicle in the present suit.

A defendant without the trial burden may point to the record's lack of supporting evidence, after which subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Kemp v. Rouse-Atlanta, Inc. · filed 1993-02-24(e)

“A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

When affidavits or other evidence establish the movant's prima facie right to summary judgment, the opposing party must produce rebuttal evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Hasty v. Spruill · filed 1993-02-24(e)

Where a motion for summary judgment is supported by affidavits or other evidentiary matter showing a prima facie right in the movant to have judgment rendered in his favor, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce rebuttal evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

After a movant shows an absence of evidence supporting the claim, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Brown v. Hitch · filed 1993-06-01(e)

Hitch discharged his duty as movant , by showing an absence of evidence to support Brown’s claim for reimbursement of tail insurance purchased after he had terminated the contract. Brown was then required to point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue under OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

The summary-judgment movant bears the initial burden to show no material factual issue, but a prima facie showing of entitlement shifts the burden to the opposing party.

Lawal v. Stanley Bostitch Co. · filed 1993-07-13

OCGA § 9-11-56 “places the burden on the moving party to show that no material issues of fact exist. The burden of proof can be shifted, however, when a prima facie showing is made that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A defendant-movant discharges its summary-judgment burden by evidence showing an absence of evidence of liability, after which the nonmovant must produce counterevidence creating a triable issue.

Adcox Service Co. v. Adderhold · filed 1993-08-16(e)

Appellant has discharged its burden as defendant-movant on summary judgment by deposition and affidavit testimony that there is an absence of evidence as to liability for the negligent installation or regular maintenance and repair of the drainage system. Appellee has produced no counterevidence in this regard giving rise to a triable issue of fact.

Once a movant points to a record lacking evidence for the claim, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Wachovia Bank of Georgia N.A. v. Mothershed · filed 1993-11-10(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After movants pierce a claim, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Paul v. Joseph · filed 1994-02-04(e)

Inasmuch as Joseph and Blanton have discharged their burden, Paul must “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie right to summary judgment with evidence, the defendant may not rest on conclusory pleaded defenses and must produce facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Charles S. Martin Distributing Co. v. Bernhardt Furniture Co. · filed 1994-05-27

[Although it is permissible to allege defenses in a conclusory format, where a plaintiff . . . files a motion for summary judgment, and evidence is offered on the issue, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie right to summary judgment, a defendant may not rest upon conclusory allegations or defenses in his pleadings, but must come forward with facts showing a genuine issue remains for trial.”

A movant may discharge its burden by pointing to record materials showing an absence of evidence for the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Ballard v. Southern Regional Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1995-01-19(e)

the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

After a movant produces evidence negating an alleged employment relationship, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue on that relationship.

Hand v. Checker Cab Co. · filed 1995-01-20(e)

... when Checker Cab produced evidence sufficient to show that Flower was an independent contractor, Hand was required to produce or point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue on this point.

After a defendant satisfies its evidentiary burden, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to present specific evidence rebutting the defendant's showing.

Benton Express, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America · filed 1995-03-31(e)

Because Royal satisfied its burden of showing good faith, Benton was then required to come forward with specific evidence rebutting that showing by demonstrating lack of good faith. Benton attempted to do this with the testimony of Don Hammonds, its Vice President of Maintenance and Safety, and an outside expert, Robert Sullivan. A review of this evidence, however, reveals that it was insufficient to rebut Royal’s evidence of good faith.

Once the summary-judgment movant meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Collins v. Prince Street Technologies Ltd. · filed 1996-02-13

Where, as here, the moving party meets its burden, the nonmoving party must then point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A movant may discharge its burden by identifying an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Lagrone v. TELECASH INVESTMENTS, INC. · filed 1996-03-06(e)

the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

Once a movant discharges its evidentiary burden, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Bradley v. British Fitting Group, PLC · filed 1996-06-03(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

When a summary-judgment respondent produces evidence establishing an affirmative defense, the burden shifts back to the movant to eliminate every genuine factual issue concerning that defense.

Gentile v. Bower · filed 1996-09-12

As a result, the burden shifted back to Bower to establish the non-existence of any genuine issue of fact as to Gentile’s affirmative defense. Bower did not meet this burden.

A movant pierces an essential element of the opponent's claim by uncontroverted expert evidence negating that element, shifting the production burden to the opponent.

Drawdy v. Department of Transportation · filed 1997-09-02(e)

Thus, the DOT pierced an essential element of Drawdy’s complaint by showing that the superelevation of the roadway had not changed since it was redesigned in 1988, i.e., the roadway had no settling, holes, cracks, grooves or ruts in the surface, caused by the failure of DOT to properly repair or maintain the roadway.

After a defendant pierces the pleadings by showing that an essential element cannot be proven, subsection (e) shifts the production burden to the plaintiff to create a disputed material factual issue.

Disaster Services, Inc. v. ERC Partnership · filed 1997-09-08(e)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), the burden of producing evidence shifted to DSI, which failed to make out a disputed issue of material fact for a jury determination, so that it was proper for the trial court to determine as a matter of law that ERC was entitled to the grant of summary judgment.

After a movant presents evidence establishing an unpaid obligation, subsection (e) requires the opponent to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Lipton v. Warner, Mayoue & Bates, P.C. · filed 1997-09-15(e)

... presented evidence of the unpaid amount for services Lipton received and accepted, the burden shifted to Lipton to point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). This he failed to do.

After contract terms and record evidence pierce a complaint, subsections (c) and (e) shift the production burden to the nonmovant to present any evidence creating a genuine material factual issue.

Arkin v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · filed 1997-09-17(c), (e)

The plain and unambiguous terms of the insurance contract, supported by evidence of record, pierced the allegations of appellant’s complaint, thereby supporting appellee’s motion for summary judgment; thereafter, the burden of ... production ... shifted to appellant to present ... any ... evidence which would give rise to a genuine issue of material fact in support of appellant’s recovery under the terms of the policy. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), (e).

Once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the burden shifts and subsection (e) requires the opponent to identify specific facts creating a genuine issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Etheredge v. Kersey · filed 1998-11-17(e)

“[o]nce the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence. In rebutting this prima facie case, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in OCGA § 9-ll-56[,] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for ... trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

Once a defendant shows an absence of evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) shifts the burden to the nonmovant to produce evidence creating a triable issue.

Vaughan v. Glymph · filed 1999-11-24(e)

If the defendant, as movant, is able to make such showing, then the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce evidence giving rise to a triable issue or suffer summary judgment. Id.; OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Once defendants show they lacked knowledge of prior similar accidents, subsection (e) shifts to the plaintiff the burden of producing evidence creating a disputed factual issue.

Howard v. Gourmet Concepts International, Inc. · filed 2000-02-08(e)

Evidence that Gourmet Concepts and Atlanta Scapes lacked knowledge of any prior accidents caused by the vegetation obstruction shifted the burden of coming forward with some evidence to create a disputed issue of fact for the jury to Howard.

Once a defendant establishes a prima facie limitations defense on summary judgment, subsection (e) shifts to the plaintiff the burden to produce evidence creating a material factual issue.

Miller v. Kitchens · filed 2001-07-31(e)

Therefore, the duty to come forward with some evidence to create a material issue of fact for the jury regarding the running of the statute of limitation shifted the burden of persuasion to the plaintiff.

After a summary-judgment movant identifies an absence of evidence and supports the motion, subsection (e) requires the opponent to produce specific evidence creating a factual question rather than rest on the pleadings.

Hurley v. Brown · filed 2002-04-23(e)

It became the Browns’ burden to come forward with specific evidence negating the assertions in Hurley’s affidavit and creating a question of fact as to this issue.

When a summary-judgment motion is supported by an affidavit under subsection (e), the nonmovant must present specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on allegations or denials.

Masonry Specialists of Georgia, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · filed 2005-05-06(e)

When a summary judgment motion is supported by an affidavit pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), the burden of coming forward with any evidence to create a material issue of fact for the jury is shifted to the nonmovant, who may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must present specific facts, by affidavit, deposition testimony, or answers to interrogatories, that show there is a genuine issue for trial.

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

Lane Supply, Inc. v. W. H. Ferguson & Sons, Inc. · filed 2007-07-11(c)

A defendant carries this burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence as to one essential element of 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.

Once a defendant pierces the complaint by disproving the case or showing no evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to identify specific competent evidence creating a triable issue.

Diaz v. Wild Adventures, Inc. · filed 2008-01-30(e)

On a motion for summary judgment, once the defendant pierces the plaintiff’s complaint by either disproving the plaintiff’s case or demonstrating that there is no evidence to support at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff cannot rest on allegations in his or her pleadings, but must point to specific, competent evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A defendant without the trial burden may obtain summary judgment by showing an absence of evidence supporting an essential element, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Shannon v. Office Max North America, Inc. · filed 2008-06-05(c)

However, a defendant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial “need only show an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

After a defendant shows no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on an essential claim element, subsection (e) shifts the burden to the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Tookes v. Murray · filed 2009-05-12(c), (e)

When a defendant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial demonstrates that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiffs claim, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to point out specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A plaintiff need not introduce evidence supporting every essential element at summary judgment unless the defendant first identifies an absence of evidence on an element and shifts the burden.

Womack v. Oasis Goodtime Emporium I, Inc. · filed 2010-10-29(c)

But the plaintiff does not bear the burden on summary judgment of introducing evidence to support each essential element in her case unless and until the defendant points to the absence of such an element and the burden shifts.

After the movant establishes a prima facie right to judgment, an opponent bearing the trial burden on affirmative defenses must identify specific record facts supporting those defenses.

Secured Realty Investment, Inc. v. Bank of North Georgia · filed 2012-03-07

Where, as here, the record shows that the promissory notes and guarantees were duly executed by the debtors and that they are in default, a prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law was established, and the burden shifted to Secured and McDowell to produce or point to evidence in the record which established an affirmative defense.

Once a defendant points to an absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s case, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Shawn Danes, Administratrix of the Estate of William Danes v. Andee Rogers · filed 2013-11-06

The burden of production then shifted to Shawn Danes to come forward with evidence that creates a genuine dispute of fact on this issue.

Once a defendant points to an absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s case, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Danes v. Rogers · filed 2013-11-06

The burden of production then shifted to Danes to come forward with evidence that creates a genuine dispute of fact on this issue.

A defendant without the trial burden may obtain summary judgment by identifying an absence of record evidence, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Bryan Bank & Trust v. Steele · filed 2014-03-05(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

The summary-judgment movant bears the initial burden; after a prima facie showing of entitlement, the burden shifts to the respondent to produce rebuttal evidence.

The Recovable Trust of Timothy W. Griffin v. Timberlands Holding Company Atlanta, Inc. · filed 2014-07-08

The movant has the original burden of making this showing. Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence.

The summary-judgment movant bears the initial burden; after a prima facie showing of entitlement, the burden shifts to the respondent to produce rebuttal evidence.

Revocable Trust of Griffin v. Timberlands Holding Co. Atlantic, Inc. · filed 2014-07-08

The movant has the original burden of making this showing. Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence.

The summary-judgment movant bears the initial burden; after a prima facie showing of entitlement, the burden shifts to the respondent to produce rebuttal evidence.

Sherman v. Thomas-Lane American Legion Post 597 · filed 2015-02-18

The movant has the original burden of making this showing. Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence.

After a properly supported summary-judgment motion pierces the pleadings, a plaintiff may not stand on allegations and must produce evidence controverting the defendant's proof.

Essien v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2016-01-28(c)

In response to a properly supported motion for summary judgment which pierces the pleadings, plaintiffs may not stand upon their allegations, but must come forward with evidence to contravene defendants’ proof or suffer judgment.

A defendant without the trial burden may obtain summary judgment by identifying an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

The Eichholz Law Firm, Pc v. Tate Law Group, LLC. Et At. · filed 2016-03-30(e)

Where a defendant moving for summary judgment discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

A movant may discharge the summary-judgment burden by identifying a record absence of evidence, after which subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

DILFIELD v. BEALING · filed 2020-10-21(c), (e)

“[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” ... see OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). “If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... see OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A movant may discharge the summary-judgment burden by identifying a record absence of evidence, after which subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

U. S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS DELAWARE TRUSTEE v. CHIEFTAIN ATLANTA, L. P. · filed 2021-09-21(c), (e)

“[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” ... see OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). If the movant meets this burden, the nonmovant “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... see OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After a defendant makes a prima facie summary-judgment showing, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify rebuttal evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on pleadings.

TOMMY YORK D/B/A YORK BUILDERS v. MOORE · filed 2023-03-09(e)

Where a defendant moving for summary judgment discharges this burden, the ... nonmoving party cannot rest on [her] pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. ... When York noted the absence of an express contract for it to assume the liability for JPG, which would be essential to Moore’s claim that York is liable for JGP’s alleged negligence, it was incumbent upon Moore to present evidence of such a contract to overcome York’s summary judgment motion. This, she failed to do. As a result, York was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and it follows that the trial court erred in denying York’s summary judgment motion due to Moore’s failure to come forward with rebuttal evidence after the burden shifted to her.

After a movant negates an essential element with record evidence, the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue and may not rest on the pleadings.

FOWLER OFFICE PARK, LLC v. GREENPRINTS ALLIANCE, INC. · filed 2023-10-20(c)

Because Greenprints has pointed to evidence negating an essential element of Fowler’s claim of tortious interference with business relations, Fowler “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... But Fowler has failed to point to any such specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue as to any action taken by Greenprints that interfered with Fowler’s purchase of the property. ... The trial court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment on that claim.

The movant initially must show no material factual issue, but a prima facie showing of entitlement shifts the burden to the opposing party to produce rebuttal evidence.

Willig v. Shelnutt · filed 1997-02-07

“[OCGA § 9-11-56] places the burden on the moving party to show that no material issues of fact exist. The burden of proof can be shifted, however, when a prima facie showing is made that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The opposite party must come forward with rebuttal evidence at that time, or suffer judgment against him.”

After a summary-judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the respondent cannot rest on the pleadings and must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Marable v. First Union National Bank · filed 1998-05-21(e)

The movant has the original burden of making this showing. Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence. ... In rebutting this prima facie case, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in OCGA § 9-11-56 must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A nonmovant’s failure to submit opposing evidence does not require summary judgment unless the movant first establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Rolleston v. Cherry · filed 1999-04-12(e)

The Trust’s argument rests on its assertion that it had presented a prima facie case entitling it to summary judgment. However, as is shown in our discussion in Division 1, the Trust was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying its motions.

A summary-judgment movant must make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Westcorp Software Systems, Inc. v. Odell · filed 1999-06-24

To prevail on summary judgment (OCGA § 9-11-56), the movant is required to make a prima facie showing that the movant is ... entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

After a summary-judgment movant makes a prima facie showing, the respondent cannot rest on the pleadings and must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Smalls v. Walker · filed 2000-03-24

In a summary judgment analysis, once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence. In rebutting this prima facie case, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in OCGA § 9-11-56, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie right to summary judgment on a contract claim, the defendant must produce evidence supporting an affirmative defense.

Browning v. Alan Mullinax & Associates, P.C. · filed 2007-10-24

The evidence produced by Mullinax P.C. made a prima facie case for summary judgment on its claim under the contract, subject to Browning’s production of evidence in support of her affirmative ... defense of failure of consideration.

A defendant moving on an affirmative defense must prove every element without relying on favorable inferences; only then does production shift to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a jury issue on an element.

Weston v. Dun Transportation & Stringer, Inc. · filed 2010-04-21

In so doing, the defendant, as the moving party seeking summary judgment, may not rely on inferences from the evidence presented, because: (1) the defendant would have such burden of proof at trial; and (2) the allocation of favorable inferences between the parties is a jury question. Once the defendant satisfies its burden of proof by presenting evidence to support each element of the affirmative defense, the same burden of proof it would have at trial, the burden of production of evidence shifts to the plaintiff, who will survive summary judgment in the same fashion that she would survive a motion for directed verdict at trial, i.e., by presenting ... any ... evidence which creates a jury issue on an element of the affirmative defense.

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must support the claim and pierce the defendant's affirmative defenses, but the defendant must support a legally viable defense with evidence rather than speculation or conjecture.

State v. Rozier · filed 2011-03-07(c)

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. ... Nonetheless, the defendant must plead a legally-viable affirmative defense supported by some evidence rather than mere guesswork. “ ‘[M]ere speculation, conjecture, or possibility [are] insufficient to preclude summary judgment.’”

A summary-judgment movant may discharge its burden through affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence, after which the nonmovant must produce evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Odion v. Varon · filed 2011-09-29(c), (e)

Upon motion for summary judgment, it is the movant’s burden to show that no jury question remains and that the movant is entitled to ... judgment as a matter of law. ... The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. After the movant discharges this burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings, but instead must come forward with evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

After a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, subsection (e) shifts the burden to the respondent to produce rebuttal evidence identifying specific facts that create a genuine disputed issue.

Dawson Pointe, LLC v. SunTrust Bank · filed 2011-11-01(e)

On summary judgment, after the movant makes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden then shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence. To do so, the respondent must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue of disputed fact. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Under subsection (c), once a movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the respondent must present specific rebuttal facts showing a genuine disputed issue.

Myers v. First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc. · filed 2013-10-21(c)

A party is entitled to summary judgment where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .” ... On summary judgment, after the movant makes a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the burden then shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence. To do so, the respondent must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue of disputed fact.

Once a summary-judgment movant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement, the respondent must produce rebuttal evidence.

Rainbow Real Investors, Lp v. Red Oak Village Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2025-08-04(c)

Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law [on summary judgment], the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence.

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, section 56(e) requires the opposing party to set forth specific facts rather than rest on the pleadings.

Holbrook Waterproofing Co. v. Cleaver · filed 1974-05-08(e)

"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section, an adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this section, must set forth specific facts . . . for trial.” CPA § 56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e)).

Section 56(e) requires a party opposing a supported motion to produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on pleading allegations or denials.

Stein v. Maddox · filed 1975-04-17(e)

Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e) provides, in pertinent part, "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” An application of this section to the present casé requires that we affirm the trial court’s ruling which granted summary judgment to Fulton County on plaintiffs’ claim for mandamus.

Section 56 places the burden on the movant to show no genuine issue and entitlement to judgment, while giving the opposing party the benefit of reasonable doubts and favorable inferences.

Cumberland Associates v. Market Assistants, Inc. · filed 1977-05-09

"A summary judgment should not be rendered unless there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and unless the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Code Ann. § 81A-156. The burden is upon the movant to affirmatively show that there is no genuine issue and that he is entitled to a summary judgment. The party opposing the motion for a summary judgment is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts in determining whether a genuine issue exists. The evidence must be construed most favorably to the opposing party, and the trial court must give him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from *484the evidence.”

Section 56(e) permits summary judgment on a supported irretrievably-broken divorce claim when the opposing spouse files no counter-affidavit.

Sims v. Sims · filed 1977-09-06(e)

In her first enumeration of error, the wife claims the court erred in granting the divorce on the irretrievably broken ground by summary judgment. The husband filed an affidavit with his motion for summary judgment, but the wife filed no counter-affidavit. Therefore, it was not error to grant the motion. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e); Summer-Minter & Associates, Inc. v. Giordano, 231 Ga. 601 (203 SE2d 173) (1974).

Sections 56(c) and (e) do not require the opposing party to produce evidence until the movant submits evidence establishing entitlement to judgment.

Skyway Cycle Sales, Inc. v. Gordon · filed 1978-11-16(c), (e)

The trial court’s order granting Gordon’s motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 stated as the sole reason for the grant that "this court finds no evidence that movant was engaged in any activity as alleged in Count I.” That was an erroneous basis for the grant of Gordon’s motion, for, until Gordon came forth with evidence establishing entitlement to judgment in his favor, there was no burden upon appellants to produce any evidence in support of the claim. CPA §§56 (c) and 56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) and (e)).

Under subsection (e), the opponent of a properly supported summary-judgment motion may not rest on the pleadings and must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Boehm v. Abi-Sarkis · filed 1993-12-01(e)

“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this Code section, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this Code section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After a defendant shows an absence of evidence on essential elements, the plaintiff must present some evidence supporting those elements to avoid summary judgment.

Collins v. Shepherd · filed 1994-02-14(c)

Plaintiff having failed to present some evidence that defendant’s security was inadequate or that any such inadequacy was the proximate cause of her injuries, summary judgment was properly granted to defendant.

Subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than requiring the movant to negate every possibility that the nonmovant exercised due care.

JH HARVEY COMPANY, INC. v. Kinchen · filed 1994-06-15(e)

the nonmoving party . . . must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

After a defendant shows that the record lacks causation evidence, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to produce specific evidence connecting the alleged loss to the covered event.

Brown v. Southeastern Security Insurance · filed 1995-02-06(e)

To create a triable issue Brown was then obligated to come forward with specific evidence that the damage to the engine was the result of the theft.

Once a defendant produces evidence negating ownership or occupancy, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue on that point.

Neal v. Baker's Liquor Store, Inc. · filed 1995-02-09(e)

Neal was obligated to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue [on whether Baker’s Liquor Store, Inc., was the owner or occupier of the premises]. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

A plaintiff need respond only to issues raised and pierced by the summary-judgment motion, and need not present the entire case on unraised allegations.

Hodge v. SADA Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1995-06-30

Consequently, Hodge was not required to present proof on all matters raised in his complaint until appellees pierced his complaint on those issues.

After the movant makes a prima facie showing, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Kelly v. PIERCE ROOFING CO., INC. · filed 1996-02-28(e)

Therefore, the Kellys could not rest on the pleadings, but were required to come forward and point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

Once a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Williams v. Fallaize Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 1996-02-29(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

After the movant produces evidence negating the claim, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Washington v. Jefferson County · filed 1996-03-14(e)

After Compton presented testimony that neither he nor any member of his department made any assurances to Washington that he would be protected, the burden shifted to Washington to come forward with some contrary evidence. Washington could no longer rest upon the mere allegations of his pleading but was required to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After a summary-judgment movant carries its initial burden, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Butler v. Bolton Road Partners · filed 1996-08-28(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

A summary-judgment respondent cannot rebut a sworn fact with an indistinct contrary conclusion and must timely produce evidence rebutting the movant's prima facie entitlement.

Haughton v. Namano, Inc. · filed 1996-08-30

“In response to [a] motion for summary judgment, it is not enough to dispute a sworn fact by proposing an indistinct conclusion to the contrary, but the respondent must say what he has to say at the right time, by producing evidence that rebuts the prima facie right to judgment.”

Once the movant's evidence pierces a claim, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Maxwell v. MAYOR & ALDER. OF SAVANNAH · filed 1997-06-05(e)

Maxwell cannot rest on his pleadings alleging that the City ratified his wrongful termination. ... Because he failed to point to any evidence giving rise to a triable issue on this claim, summary judgment was proper.

After a movant establishes a material fact, subsection (e) shifts the burden to the nonmovant to produce specific evidence creating a triable issue; unsupported speculation has no probative value.

McGee v. State · filed 1997-07-02(e)

Having established that he was acting within the scope of his employment, the burden shifted to McGee to come forward with specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). McGee has come forward with no evidence that Avant was acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

After the defendant pierces the knowledge element of a premises-liability claim, the plaintiff must produce specific evidence that the defendant's knowledge of the alleged hazard was superior.

Schultheiss v. Prentiss Properties, Ltd. · filed 1997-07-03(c)

At summary judgment, Schultheiss had the burden to come forward with specific evidence that Prentiss’ knowledge of the alleged peril was superior to hers.

After defendants show an absence of supporting evidence, the nonmovant may not rely on complaint allegations and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Diffley v. Marshall's at East Lake · filed 1997-07-15(e)

Once the defendants met this burden, Diffley could not, as she often does in her appellate brief, rely on the allegations in her complaint, but was required to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

A plaintiff satisfies subsection (e)'s shifted production burden by presenting evidence that creates material factual issues for a jury.

Jordan v. Atlanta Replex Corp. · filed 1997-09-17(e)

Plaintiff met her burden of producing evidence that created material issues of fact for the jury to decide. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After a movant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, subsection (e) prevents the opponent from resting on the pleadings and requires specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

World Championship Wrestling, Inc. v. City of MacOn · filed 1997-11-06(e)

In rebutting this prima facie case, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [OCGA § 9-11-56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

To avoid summary judgment after the defendant pierces the knowledge element, a premises-liability plaintiff must produce specific evidence that the defendant's knowledge of the alleged hazard was superior.

Dickman v. SOUTH CITY MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 1997-11-10(c)

To avoid summary judgment the Dickmans could not rest on the pleadings but had the burden to come forward with specific evidence that South City’s knowledge of the alleged peril was superior.

A plaintiff satisfies subsection (e) by producing affirmative evidence supporting the claim in response to a summary-judgment motion.

Perton v. Motel Properties, Inc. · filed 1998-02-12(e)

Plaintiff has produced such evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A plaintiff responding to a properly supported summary-judgment motion must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue on the elements challenged by the motion.

Sellers v. Air Therm Co. · filed 1998-03-18(e)

Although a plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment generally is not required to establish a prima facie case of liability, in the instant case, because of the basis for Air Therm’s motion for summary judgment, Sellers was required to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue” ... on whether Air Therm owned the van that ran Sellers off the road and whether the driver of the van was an employee or agent of Air Therm and was driving the vehicle in the course and scope of his employment.

An opposing expert affidavit satisfies subsection (e) when it supplies evidence creating material factual issues for jury determination.

Lemon v. Martin · filed 1998-04-23(e)

The affidavit of plaintiffs expert witness in opposition to the motion for summary judgment satisfied the burden of coming forward with some evidence that created material issues of fact for jury determination as to a breach of duty by the landlord, causation, and the deceased’s exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.

A nonmovant’s unsupported assertion, without probative evidence on an essential element, cannot withstand summary judgment.

Lee v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 1998-06-19(c)

Lee’s naked assertion that CSX caused his hearing loss, without any probative medical evidence, could not withstand CSX’s motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 9-11-56 requires courts deciding summary judgment to believe the nonmovant’s evidence and draw all justifiable inferences in that party’s favor, the same standard used under Federal Rule 56.

Douglas v. Maddox · filed 1998-07-16

In deciding motions for summary judgment in cases such as this, the non-moving party’s evidence must be believed, and all justifiable inferences arising therefrom must be construed in that party’s favor. ... This standard is the same under both OCGA § 9-11-56 and FRCP 56.

A plaintiff opposing summary judgment survives by presenting any evidence creating a jury issue on the challenged element; even slight evidence, including favorable inferences, satisfies that production burden.

Phillips v. Key Services, Inc. · filed 1998-12-03

However, the plaintiff, as the nonmovant, “will survive summary judgment by presenting ... any ... evidence which establishes a jury issue regarding that element. Even slight evidence will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of production of some evidence on a motion for summary judgment; such evidence may include favorable inferences drawn by the court from evidence presented.”

When the record contains no evidence identifying a disputed boundary and the nonmovant offers only an unexplained survey reference, no triable issue exists under subsection (e).

Wiggin v. Horne · filed 1999-02-08(e)

Our review of the record demonstrates that there is no evidence in the record from which a fact finder could identify the disputed boundary. Wiggin’s reference in his deposition to a 1979 land survey is insufficient to create an issue for trial as the survey does not identify a disputed boundary and Wiggin fails to provide any explanation as to where the disputed boundary lies. In the absence of any evidence giving rise to a triable issue, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Summary judgment must be denied under subsection (e) when the plaintiffs produce sufficient evidence and permissible inferences to create material factual issues.

Howard v. City of Columbus · filed 1999-07-15(e)

plaintiffs raised sufficient issues of material fact that the trial court should have denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the federal issues. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A nonmovant need only identify specific evidence raising a material fact issue, not conclusively prove the fact reserved for the jury.

Oertel v. Fraternity · filed 1999-07-16(e)

Oertel’s burden was only to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).” ... His obligation was to come forward with evidence raising a material issue of fact, not to prove conclusively the fact that is for the jury to decide.

A nonmovant survives summary judgment by presenting any evidence creating a jury issue on the challenged element; even slight evidence and favorable inferences satisfy that production burden.

Artzner v. a & a EXTERMINATORS, INC. · filed 2000-03-14(c)

will survive summary judgment by presenting ... any ... evidence which establishes a jury issue regarding that element. Even slight evidence will be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of production of some evidence on a motion for summary judgment; such evidence may include favorable inferences drawn by the court from the evidence presented.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; after that showing, the opponent must produce evidence of an actual issue for trial.

Dillard v. Denson · filed 2000-03-28(c)

Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... When the movant has made these showings, “the respondent may not rest on [its] pleadings but must put forth evidence showing actual issues for trial. [Cit.]”

When a defendant shows that the plaintiff cannot prove damages at trial, the plaintiff must produce evidence creating a factual issue on damages to avoid summary judgment.

Walker v. Crane · filed 2000-05-05(e)

Further, after the defendant on summary judgment showed that the Walkers could not establish at trial the fair market value of the damaged truck at the time of the alleged conversion, the Walkers failed to come forward with some evidence to create a factual issue as to damages at trial.

The slightest evidence on each material element is sufficient for a plaintiff to create a jury issue and defeat summary judgment.

Moore v. Pitt-Desmoines, Inc. · filed 2000-08-09(c)

the standard is that the slightest evidence on each material element presented by the plaintiff is sufficient to create a jury issue. ... “The grant of summary judgment is authorized only when there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact ... and ... the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).”

A nonmovant defeats summary judgment by identifying any specific evidence, even slight evidence, that creates a triable issue of material fact.

Sprint Transport Group Inc. v. China Shipping NA Agency, Inc. · filed 2010-02-15(c)

the respondent does not have to present conclusive proof to rebut the movant’s evidence; if the respondent produces or points to any specific evidence, even slight, in the record giving rise to a triable issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied.

Unsworn, unauthenticated hearsay reports containing factual assertions outside the authors’ personal knowledge cannot be used as substantive evidence to oppose summary judgment.

Adamson v. General Electric Co. · filed 2010-03-22(c)

But both reports are hearsay themselves, and they contain more hearsay. They are unsworn, unauthenticated documents that include assertions of fact about Adamson’s personal exposure to asbestos about which the authors have no personal knowledge.

A respondent need not conclusively rebut the movant; any specific evidence, even slight, that creates a triable material issue requires denial of summary judgment.

Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Tutt Contracting, Inc. · filed 2010-08-27(c)

[t]o defeat a motion for summary judgment, the respondent does not have to present conclusive proof to rebut the movant’s evidence; if the respondent produces or points to any specific evidence, even slight, in the record giving rise to a triable issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied.

Once a movant supports summary judgment with record evidence showing no material issue, the adverse party must produce evidence sufficient to generate a material factual issue.

Payless Car Rental System, Inc. v. Elkik · filed 2010-10-07(e)

At this point, in order to avoid summary judgment on this issue, PRG was required to come forward with some evidence sufficient to generate an issue of material fact.

A nonmovant defeats summary judgment by identifying any specific record evidence, even slight evidence, that creates a triable issue of material fact; conclusive rebuttal proof is unnecessary.

Lee v. SUNTRUST BANK · filed 2012-02-09(c)

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the respondent does not have to present conclusive proof to rebut the movant’s evidence; if the respondent produces or points to any specific evidence, even slight, in the record giving rise to a triable issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied.

Once a summary-judgment movant supports the motion, the opponent must present affidavits or other evidence of specific facts creating a genuine issue and bears the burden of timely filing any discovery materials on which it relies.

Isbell v. Credit Nation Lending Service · filed 2012-11-29

Under OCGA § 9-11-56, once a movant supports his motion for summary judgment, the opponent cannot rest upon the mere allegations of his complaint, but must come forth with affidavits or other evidence setting forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial. And the burden of timely filing depositions and other discovery material with the trial court lies with the party which intends to rely upon it.

Once a plaintiff moving for summary judgment produces evidence that it is the real party in interest, the opposing party cannot defeat judgment by resting on an unsupported real-party-in-interest defense.

Bogart v. Wisconsin Institute for Torah Study · filed 2013-03-07(c)

Because Bogart failed to produce any evidence in support of his asserted defense that the Institute was not the real party in interest, the trial court did not err when it implicitly rejected that defense and granted the Institute summary judgment.

The party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor, but need only present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Cheeley Investments, Lp v. Zambetti · filed 2015-04-10(c)

The party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.

A summary-judgment opponent need only present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, not evidence demanding judgment in its favor.

BADICHI v. ALBION TRADING, INC. Et Al. · filed 2017-05-12(c)

The party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.

The party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor, but need only present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Walmart Stores East L. P. v. Benson. · filed 2017-10-04(c)

The party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.

The party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor, but need only present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Silver Comet Terminal Partners, LLC v. Paulding County, Georgia · filed 2017-10-24(c)

The party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.

A party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor and need only present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Swint v. Paul Alphonse, Jr. · filed 2018-11-01(c)

“[t]he party opposing summary judgment is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for it, but is only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.”

A party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor, but must present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

In the Matter of D. Duston Tapley, Jr · filed 2020-04-20(c)

Tapley, as the party opposing summary judgment, was not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for him, but was “only required to present evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.”

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Queen Dollar v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-10(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party . . . must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A respondent defeats summary judgment by pointing to any specific evidence, even slight evidence, that creates a triable issue of material fact.

STERLING SEACREST PRITCHARD, INC. v. HOLDERFIELD · filed 2025-10-30(c)

To defeat a motion for summary judgment the respondent does not have to present conclusive proof to rebut the movant’s evidence; if the respondent produces or points to any specific evidence, even slight, in the record giving rise to a triable issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied.

A negligence plaintiff need not present expert causation evidence to survive summary judgment when a lay jury can determine whether a fall aggravated a previously resolved injury.

Willis v. Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. · filed 2025-11-25(c)

“[w]here the causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the [plaintiff’s] injury can be determined by a lay jury without expert guidance, no expert evidence need be produced to defeat a defense motion for summary judgment.”

Section 9-11-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rely on its pleadings.

Bieling v. Battle · filed 1993-06-24(e)

As the Supreme Court noted in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991), in opposing a motion for summary judgment, “the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).” ... In Coleman, the record was replete with factual disputes whereas the facts in the present case are undisputed.

A defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing an absence of evidence on an essential element; the plaintiff must then identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Hillcrest Foods, Inc. v. Kiritsy · filed 1997-07-11(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

Once a defendant shows an absence of evidence on an essential element, § 9-11-56(e) requires the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rely on her pleadings.

James v. Sirmans · filed 2009-07-17(e)

Should the defendant do so, the plaintiff eannot rest on her pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

Once a summary-judgment movant meets its burden, the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue, while speculation or conjecture is insufficient.

In Re Estate of Charles Darrell Henry · filed 2023-02-03(c)

Importantly, if the movant meets this burden, the nonmovant “cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... And speculation which “raises merely a conjecture or possibility is not sufficient to create even an inference of fact for consideration on summary judgment.” ... Here, in its order granting summary judgment in favor of Shirley, the probate court found that Tenika and LaRon presented no evidence that Henry was subjected to undue influence when executing his 2017 will. But that assertion is belied by, at the very least, the circumstantial evidence outlined in the affidavits Tenika and LaRon submitted with their response to Shirley’s motion for summary judgment.

A nonmovant need not produce evidence demanding judgment in its favor and need only present evidence raising a material factual issue, receiving all reasonable doubts and favorable inferences.

JONES v. LICK LOG CREEK, INC. · filed 2023-02-24(c)

[T]he non-movant is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for that party, but only to present evidence which raises a material issue of fact. Where the evidence on motion for summary judgment is ambiguous or doubtful, the party opposing the motion must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and of all favorable inferences and such evidence construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion.

Summary judgment must be denied when the nonmovant identifies some evidence creating a genuine issue on an essential element.

TERRI FIELDS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF RONQUISHA FARLEY v. RAINBOW COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. · filed 2023-10-23(c)

As an alternate ground for summary judgment, the trial court held that “there is no evidence that the defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff.” We hold that Fields presented at least some evidence on this issue. ... Giving [Fields] the benefit of all favorable inferences, we are persuaded that she has presented some evidence, however slight, that [Rainbow’s] failure to [provide security] was a proximate contributing cause of [R. F.’s injuries].

A respondent defeats summary judgment by pointing to any specific record evidence, even slight evidence, that creates a triable material factual issue and need not present conclusive rebuttal proof.

SAMPSON v. THE MEDICAL CENTER, INC. · filed 2023-10-23(c)

To defeat such a motion, the respondent “does not have to present conclusive proof to rebut the movant’s evidence [because] if the respondent produces or points to any specific evidence, even slight, in the record giving rise to a triable issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied.”

After a movant identifies an absence of supporting evidence, the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a genuine issue rather than rely on the pleadings or unsupported argument.

WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS, LLC v. FREDD · filed 2025-06-20(c)

In responding to the motion, Fredd failed to point to any specific evidence giving rise to a genuine issue of material fact and made no cognizable argument that the corporate form had been abused to perpetuate a fraud. Fredd thus did not satisfy his burden of “point[ing] to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

A party opposing a properly supported summary-judgment motion may not rely on pleading allegations but must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Dunaway v. North Georgia Co. · filed 1979-05-17(e)

Under Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e), ". . . [W]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere *67allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits, or as otherwise provided in this section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” This, appellant failed to do. Accordingly, it was not error to grant summary judgment to the appellee.

Under sections 56(c) and (e), a nonmovant’s failure to submit opposing affidavits does not justify summary judgment unless the movant first satisfies the statutory criteria.

Reese v. Sanders · filed 1980-02-28(c), (e)

CPA § 56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e)) provides: "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” (Emphasis supplied.) The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary *656judgment because, notwithstanding appellant’s failure to respond to the motion with affidavits of his own, appellee has failed to satisfy the criteria for summary judgment set forth in CPA § 56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c)).

An unopposed affidavit establishing that a defendant never possessed the property at issue supports summary judgment for that defendant in a trover action.

Cooper v. Ricketts · filed 1975-07-08

This unopposed affidavit established that he had never had possession of any property belonging to the plaintiff.

A supporting affidavit is sufficient for summary judgment when the opponent's interrogatory responses do not controvert its material allegations.

Grier v. First National Bank · filed 1980-10-29(e)

The bank’s affidavit was sufficient to support the grant of summary judgment. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is nothing in the appellant’s responses to the bank’s interrogatories which controverts any of the material allegations contained in this affidavit.