Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

Failure to respond to a summary-judgment motion waives the right to offer opposing evidence but does not create a default judgment; the movant still must show from the pleadings and evidence that judgment is proper.

Rapps v. Cooke · filed 1998-08-26

Because there is no such thing as a default summary judgment, Rapps’ failure to timely respond to the motion does not automatically entitle the Cookes to summary judgment in their favor. ... A failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment ... results in waiver of the right to present evidence in opposition to the motion, but the moving party must still show from the pleadings and the evidence that summary judgment is appropriate.

Under subsection (e), a party opposing summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations and must offer evidence countering the movant’s proof.

Lewis v. Lease Atlanta, Inc. · filed 1998-10-21(e)

The trial court properly entered summary judgment against Lewis, who rested on mere allegations and failed to provide any evidence countering Lease Atlanta’s proof. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A nonmovant who offers no evidence in opposition cannot create a genuine dispute where the movant’s evidence establishes the material facts.

Bellamy v. Sunflower Properties, Inc. · filed 1999-10-20(e)

Our review of the record indicates that the Bellamys offered no evidence in opposition to Sunflower’s motion for summary judgment. There is no evidence shewing discharge of the price of the house as called for in the construction contract. Neither is there a dispute that the Bellamys were required to pay the purchase price of the house as a condition to receiving title to the property.

Facts conclusively established by unwithdrawn admissions can eliminate every genuine material factual issue and entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law under subsection (c).

Jackson v. NEMDEGELT, INC. · filed 2010-03-10(c)

These facts establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact alleged in Nemdegelt’s complaint and that Nemdegelt is therefore entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Failing to respond timely to a summary-judgment motion does not entitle the movant to judgment by default; the movant still must establish no genuine material issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

SOUTHEASTERN SITECAST, INC. v. Buonocore · filed 2011-07-14(c)

Generally, “the failure to file a response to a motion for summary judgment or to other motions pursuant to USCR 6.2 does not entitle the movant to grant of the motion but merely waives the opponent’s right to present evidence in opposition to the motion.” ... The burden remains 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.

Subsection (e) supports summary judgment when the opposing party fails to produce evidence showing that the statutory requirements at issue were met.

Sentinel Offender Services, LLC v. Glover · filed 2014-11-24(e)

Sentinel has failed to come forward with any evidence showing that the statutory requirements were, in fact, met, thus summary judgment on this issue is appropriate. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e); Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622, 623 (697 SE2d 779) (2010).

A summary-judgment motion cannot be granted by default; the pleadings and evidence must affirmatively show that the movant is entitled to prevail.

EDUCAP, INC. v. JENNIFER L. HAGGARD A/K/A JENNIFER L. PODESTA · filed 2017-06-13(c)

Nevertheless, “[a] motion for summary judgment should not be granted unless it affirmatively appears from the pleadings and evidence that the party so moving is entitled to prevail.”

Failure to respond to a summary-judgment motion waives the right to offer opposing evidence but does not create a default judgment; the movant must still show from the pleadings and evidence that summary judgment is appropriate.

SALEM CROSSING TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. WAGNER Et Al. · filed 2018-10-16(e)

“Because there is no such thing as a default summary judgment,” the Association’s failure to respond to Peterson’s motion for summary judgment did not automatically entitle Peterson to judgment in his favor. ... Although the Association waived its right to present evidence in opposition to Peterson’s motion for summary judgment by failing to respond, Peterson was still obligated to demonstrate from the pleadings and the evidence that summary judgment was appropriate.

When a supported summary-judgment motion is made under subsection (e), the adverse party may not rest on the pleadings and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

CEASAR Et Al. v. SHELTON · filed 2004-03-15(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported [by affidavits pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e)], 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.

Subsection (e) requires a respondent to identify specific facts showing a genuine disputed issue rather than rely on general allegations.

Oasis Goodtime Emporium I, Inc. v. Crossroads Consulting Group, LLC. · filed 2002-05-15(e)

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). This Oasis failed to do.

When rebutting a prima facie case under section 9-11-56, the respondent may not rest on the pleadings and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Glatfelter v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2002-01-14

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.”

When a supported summary-judgment motion counters a realtor's procuring-cause claim, the realtor must make a threshold rebuttal showing that its negotiations were still pending and known to the seller.

FIELDS REALTY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. Teper · filed 1983-01-04(e)

Whether a realtor was the procuring cause of a sale is generally a question of fact for the jury but, when faced with a motion for summary judgment supported by answers to interrogatories, admissions, depositions and affidavits countering the claim, the realtor must make a threshold showing to survive the motion. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e) (now OCGA § 9-11-56(e)).

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue rather than rest on pleadings or discovery responses that do not meet the movant's evidence.

Northcutt v. Mills · filed 1981-09-30(e)

“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.”

Under subsection (e), an adverse party cannot rely on allegations or denials after a motion is properly supported and must instead set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Frazier v. Petecraft Aviation Services, Inc · filed 1982-11-30(e)

“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.”

Summary judgment is improper when substantial factual issues remain, but a properly supported motion requires the adverse party to set forth specific facts rather than rest on pleading allegations or denials.

Johnson v. G. A. B. Business Services, Inc. · filed 1983-02-01(c), (e)

While it is certainly true that summary judgment is improper “where there are substantial issues of fact to be determined” (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)), it is equally certain that “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported [by affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions], 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.”

Although a party may not merely rest on pleadings, a pleaded factual assertion that itself creates a material factual issue can satisfy the requirement to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Keasler v. Cedar Bluff Bank · filed 1982-04-07(e)

While a party may not merely rest on the allegations and denials of his pleadings (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e)), the statement or assertion in pleadings of a fact which in itself creates a material issue of fact certainly constitutes “set[ting] forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e)).

Section 56(c) permits summary judgment when the opposing party presents no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Houser v. TILDEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION · filed 1983-05-20(c)

Since there was no evidence presented by appellant which would create a genuine issue on any material fact, the trial court did not err in granting appellee a summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Sections 56(c) and (e) support summary judgment when the adverse party fails to set forth specific facts and the submitted record shows no genuine material issue.

Parks v. Atlanta Public School System Board of Education · filed 1983-10-11(c), (e)

An exhaustive review of the record reveals that appellants have not “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” with respect to the coaches’ alleged liability on the theories of contract, fraud, and nuisance, as required of the adverse party to a motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156). To the contrary, “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and [other documents submitted] show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party [the coaches in the instant case] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156). Since there remained no genuine issue of material fact regarding the coaches’ possible liability under any of the theories propounded by appellants, the court below properly granted summary judgment on the fraud, contract, and nuisance issues.

A supported summary-judgment motion eliminates the need for trial when the opponent produces no evidence conflicting with the movant's positive testimony, even after receiving all favorable inferences.

Alghita v. Universal Investment & Manufacturing Co. · filed 1983-07-15(e)

No genuine issue of material fact remains as to lot 3, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

An opponent to a supported summary-judgment motion may not rest on pleading allegations but must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Koets, Inc. v. Benveniste · filed 1983-12-05(e)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) (Code Ann. § 81A-156) provides: “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.”

A bare assertion of fraud unsupported by proof capable of establishing the defense does not create a genuine material factual issue.

Marchman Oil & Chemical Company, Inc. v. Southern Petroleum Trading Company Ltd. · filed 1983-09-06(c)

Appellants’ bare assertion that the amount of the debt was incorrect, unaccompanied by any proof that they were prevented by Southern from reading what they signed, does not present a material fact upon which a genuine issue of fraud can be raised.

Sections 56(c), (d), and (e) permit judgment against a party who neither responds in the prescribed manner nor establishes a genuine issue of material fact, provided judgment is otherwise appropriate.

Partridge v. Partridge · filed 1983-09-06(c), (d), (e)

In the case at bar appellant not only failed to carry her burden of establishing the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), (d) (Code Ann. § 81A-156), but was in total non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The court below did not err in awarding summary judgment to appellees.

Once a movant demonstrates entitlement to judgment on the existing record, the opponent must place facts supporting any additional defense in the record in response to the motion.

Perry v. International Indemnity Co. · filed 1984-01-31(e)

Appellee fails to recognize, however, that a party must set forth facts in the record in response to a motion for summary judgment showing there is a genuine issue for trial whenever the movant has demonstrated her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the state of the record at the time of the motion.

A movant is entitled to summary judgment when its evidence conclusively establishes entitlement and the opponent submits no evidence refuting that showing.

Sheffield v. Zilis · filed 1984-02-13(e)

Further, there is no contention on appeal (nor any evidence of record) that appellee undertook to direct Dr. Zilis in the way or manner of treating appellant. Finally, there is no evidence of record refuting the evidence submitted by appellee in support of its motion for summary judgment. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in finding that appellee had conclusively shown that it had acted in good faith and with reasonable care in appointing Dr. Zilis to its medical staff and thus was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is proper when an opponent produces no rebuttal evidence supporting an allegation after the movant negates it.

Pritchard v. Wilson · filed 1984-03-15

As appellant produced no evidence in rebuttal to support his contention that appellees were negligent in their use of floor materials and lighting, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on these issues. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue and cannot rest on pleading allegations or denials.

Jahncke Service, Inc. v. Department of Transportation · filed 1984-09-10(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 . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A party moving for summary judgment on the ground that the opponent has no valid claim must produce evidence negating that claim.

Yalanzon v. Citibank (South Dakota) N. A. · filed 1984-02-24

A party moving for summary judgment on the ground that the opposing party has no valid claim has the burden of producing evidence which negatives that claim. ... Citibank has not sustained its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the counterclaim in this case.

A party may raise at summary judgment a defense that required no responsive pleading, but must present evidence supporting it to create a material factual issue.

Jones v. Conlin · filed 1984-06-07(c)

If she could assert the defense at trial without a responsive pleading, it follows that she could assert it in response to a motion for summary judgment by presenting evidence of payment.

Under section 56(e), a party opposing a supported motion must present specific facts showing a genuine issue and cannot rely on pleading allegations or denials.

Richards v. Southern Finance Corp. · filed 1984-06-20(e)

Pretermitting the question of whether or not in the instant case parol evidence was properly admissible for this purpose, as a matter of law the parol evidence contained in appellant’s affidavit and his deposition was insufficient to meet the statutory standard: “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).

Section 56 requires courts to construe evidence most favorably to the nonmovant and deny judgment when material factual questions remain.

Norton v. Georgia Railroad Bank & Trust · filed 1984-11-20

Construing the evidence most favorably to the cross-appellees we find that there are questions of material fact remaining and it was not error for the trial court to refuse to grant summary judgment to the cross-appellants. Therefore, we affirm case no. 40897.

A party opposing summary judgment must do more than rest on pleading allegations or denials and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Scott v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. · filed 1984-11-19(e)

The statute requires the respondent to a motion for summary judgment to do more than “rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but. . . [to] set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

A nonmoving plaintiff need not respond to a defendant's inadequately supported summary-judgment motion and may rely on the movant's failure to remove all factual issues.

Beard v. McDowell · filed 1985-05-20(c), (e)

The non-moving plaintiff may resist a motion for summary judgment by doing nothing, relying on the movant’s failure to remove all issues from the facts of the case.

Summary judgment is proper when the opponent offers no evidence to contradict the movant's showing.

Bettis v. Ryle · filed 1985-09-03(e)

Appellant having offered no evidence to the contrary, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for appellee Ryle. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

An opponent may not rest on pleading allegations but must respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Butler v. Terminix International, Inc. · filed 1985-09-05(e)

On a motion for summary judgment “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A party who fails to respond to a supported motion with specific facts showing a genuine material factual issue may have summary judgment entered against it.

Epple v. Physician's Practice Group-Medical Research Foundation · filed 1985-09-20(e)

Because plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial, the court properly entered summary judgment against him.

When a movant's evidence of diligence and good faith is uncontroverted, the opponent cannot rest on allegations and summary judgment is proper.

Nalley v. Harris · filed 1985-10-25(e)

Since there was no evidence showing a lack of diligence and good faith on the part of plaintiff, the entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff was proper.

An opposing affidavit that merely repeats complaint allegations does not satisfy section 56(e)’s response burden.

Bridges v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc. · filed 1985-09-10(e)

The affidavit filed by appellant in opposition to appellee’s motion merely reiterates the allegations of the complaint; it therefore fails to meet the burden imposed by OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). The trial court correctly granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 56(e) requires a nonmovant to support bare allegations with evidence once the record documents resolve the asserted issues.

Moore v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1986-05-15(e)

The documents of record in the instant case indicate clearly that the purported issues were resolved on summary judgment. Therefore, Mrs. Moore did not carry the evidentiary burden imposed upon her by OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee.

Section 56(e) requires an adverse party to set forth specific facts and bars reliance on general or conclusory pleading allegations.

Anderberg v. Georgia Electric Membership Corp. · filed 1985-05-31(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 . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. . . .”

Once a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Athens International, Inc. v. Venture Capital Properties, Inc. · filed 1998-01-22(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 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.

Smith v. STEINEMANN DEVELOPMENT CO. · filed 1998-02-05(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).

Once a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Strahley v. Pruitt Corp. · filed 1998-02-17(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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Heinsimer v. Wellington Leisure Products, Inc. · filed 1998-03-11(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).”

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.

Cotton v. Bank South · filed 1998-03-18(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.”

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.

Entertainment Sales Co. v. SNK, INC. · filed 1998-04-15(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).

Once a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Speir v. Krieger · filed 1998-11-20(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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Anderson v. Houser · filed 1999-10-06

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.

Once a summary-judgment movant shows an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant’s case, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Reagan v. Lynch · filed 1999-11-01

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.

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

Ambrose v. Sheppard · filed 2000-01-18(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the non-moving 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, the plaintiff cannot rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Jackson v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2000-02-08(e)

Should the defendant do so, the plaintiff “cannot rest on [her] pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

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

Glisson v. Freeman · filed 2000-03-24(e)

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

Wallace v. Stringer · filed 2001-07-31(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 a lawyer suing for unpaid services proves the contract terms, accepted services, and unpaid balance, subsection (e) requires the client opposing summary judgment to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Hipes & Norton, P.C. v. Pye Automobile Sales of Chattanooga, Inc. · filed 2002-03-06(e)

As in any suit on account for services rendered, after a lawyer presents evidence of the terms of the contract, the services provided and accepted, and the amount left unpaid, the burden in opposing summary judgment shifts to the client to point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Sudduth v. Young · filed 2003-02-04(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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Smith v. Lewis · filed 2003-02-11(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).

After a summary-judgment movant carries its burden, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Latson v. Boaz · filed 2004-06-28(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 a movant makes a prima facie summary-judgment showing, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on the pleadings.

Strange v. Housing Auth. of City of Summerville · filed 2004-07-09(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 this Code section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

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

Rogers v. Smith · filed 2005-01-19

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on her pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

Once a defendant shows an absence of evidence on an essential claim element, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Alexander v. A. Atlanta Autosave, Inc. · filed 2005-03-09(e)

Once the defendant carries its burden by demonstrating the absence of evidence as to one essential element of plaintiffs case, “the plaintiff cannot rest on her pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) ”

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Willingham v. Hudson · filed 2005-07-07(e)

After the movant discharges his burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on his pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Sotomayor v. TAMA I, LLC · filed 2005-07-12(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 a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Wallace v. Greene County · filed 2005-07-13(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). Id.

When a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on allegations or denials.

Hawk v. Daimlerchrysler Services North America, LLC · filed 2005-10-04(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.

After a summary-judgment movant establishes its position, subsection (e) shifts the burden to the opponent to identify facts creating a conflict.

Ward v. Morgan · filed 2006-04-25(e)

The burden then shifted to Ward to point to facts giving rise to a conflict on this issue.

When a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to set out specific facts showing a genuine trial issue rather than rest on pleadings.

Gerben v. BENEFICIAL GEORGIA, INC. · filed 2007-02-23(e)

[W]hen 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.

A party fails subsection (e)'s response burden by offering only unsworn denials and no evidence contradicting the movant's sworn affidavit.

Cuyler v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2007-03-07(e)

Cuyler offered no evidence contradicting Allstate’s affidavit, other than his unsworn denials, and thus failed to meet his burden under OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Once a movant supports summary judgment, section 9-11-56 requires the opponent to produce affidavits or other evidence setting out specific facts showing a genuine trial issue rather than rest on complaint allegations.

Parker v. Silviano · filed 2007-03-19(e)

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.

After a summary-judgment movant identifies an absence of supporting evidence, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Bonner Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Karsman · filed 2007-05-29(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.

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires evidence establishing a triable issue.

Bayrock Mortgage Corp. v. Chicago Title Insurance · filed 2007-06-20(e)

After the movant discharges his burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on his pleadings, but instead must come forward with evidence establishing a triable issue.

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

Champion v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. of Del. · filed 2007-07-05(e)

After the movant discharges his burden, the nonmovant cannot rest on his pleadings, but instead must come forward with evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

After a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Miller v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2007-09-25(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 a summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to produce evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Wellstar Health System, Inc. v. Painter · filed 2007-11-29(e)

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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Bullington v. Blakely Crop Hail, Inc. · filed 2008-09-24(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 a summary-judgment movant identifies an absence of record evidence, the nonmovant cannot rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC v. Clemente · filed 2008-09-25

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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) prevents the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Schofield Interior Contractors, Inc. v. Standard Bldg. Co., Inc. · filed 2008-10-03(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 motion is properly supported, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to state specific facts showing a genuine trial issue rather than rest on pleadings.

Dyess v. Brewton · filed 2008-11-03(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.

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

Gettner v. Fitzgerald · filed 2009-04-01

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 summary-judgment movant discharges its burden, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Henderson v. Sargent · filed 2009-04-16(e)

If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on his pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

When a supported summary-judgment motion is made, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on pleading allegations and requires specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Gallagher v. Buckhead Community Bank · filed 2009-07-24(e)

may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his [or her] pleading, but his [or her] 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 [or she] does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him [or her].

Once a summary-judgment motion is supported by evidence, the opposing party cannot rest on pleadings and must produce specific evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

Cox v. CITY OF SASSER · filed 2009-09-28(e)

However, when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported by evidence, an adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in his pleadings, but must come forward with specific evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

A party opposing a supported summary-judgment motion cannot rely on general allegations and must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Capital Land USA, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc. · filed 2011-02-23(e)

Moreover, “[appellants] may not rest on general allegations in response to [MMCA’s] motion for summary judgment, but must come forward with specific facts to show there is a genuine issue for trial.” ... In their appellate brief, appellants have failed to point with specificity to any fact issue raised by their counterclaim. Thus, this enumeration of error fails.

When a supported summary-judgment motion is filed, the nonmovant cannot rest on pleading allegations or denials and must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Kitchings v. Ameris Bank · filed 2011-06-08(e)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), when a party moves for summary judgment and supports his or her motion by submitting affidavits, depositions, or answers to interrogatories, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his [or her] pleading, but his [or her] ... 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.

When a supported summary-judgment motion is made, subsection (e) bars the opponent from resting on pleadings and requires specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Ladner v. Northside Hospital, Inc. · filed 2012-02-16(e)

... may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his [or her] pleading, but his [or her] 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 [or she] does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him [or her].

When a properly supported summary-judgment motion is made, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on the pleadings.

Ridley v. SOVEREIGN SOLUTIONS, LLC · filed 2012-03-28(e)

Where, as here, ... a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in [OCGA§ 9-11-56], an adverse party may not rest ... upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but [her] 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 [s]he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against [her].

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party may not rest on pleadings but must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial or face summary judgment if otherwise appropriate.

Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Toh Associates, Ltd. · filed 2012-11-26(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in [OCGA 9-11-56], 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], ... 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.

Once a summary-judgment motion is supported by affidavits, depositions, or interrogatory answers, the opponent may not rest on pleadings but must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Hwa Properties, Inc. v. Community and Southern Bank · filed 2013-07-15(e)

When a party moves for summary judgment and supports his or her motion by submitting affidavits, depositions, or answers to interrogatories, the opposing 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.”

When a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on pleadings.

Richards v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. · filed 2014-02-10(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.

After a defendant identifies an absence of evidence supporting an essential element, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Cartersville Ranch, LLC v. Dellinger · filed 2014-05-19(e)

Where a defendant “discharges this burden, the nonmoving party . . . must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party may not rest on pleadings but must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial or face summary judgment if otherwise appropriate.

Reeves v. Mahathre · filed 2014-07-31(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.

Under subsection (e), a party opposing a properly supported summary-judgment motion cannot rest on pleadings and must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

DeKALB COUNTY v. KIRKLAND Et Al. · filed 2014-10-29(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.

After the movant meets its initial burden, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue; unsupported assertions in a complaint or brief are not evidence.

Ashton Atlanta Residential, LLC v. Ajibola · filed 2015-03-18(e)

Once Ashton met its initial burden, it became incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... The Plaintiffs shirked this responsibility. Rather, the Plaintiffs relied upon unsupported statements in their brief in response to Ashton’s motion for summary judgment and failed to submit any evidence for the trial court’s consideration. ... Neither the Plaintiffs’ complaint nor their brief in opposition to Ashton’s motion for summary judgment are proper evidence to oppose Ashton’s motion. ... See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Subsection (e) requires a summary-judgment opponent to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rest on allegations or denials in pleadings.

The Phoenix on Peachtree Condominium Association, Inc. v. Deon Grant · filed 2015-03-19(e)

Because Grant has not carried his burden of pointing to evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, the association and Marshall were entitled to summary judgment on this claim. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) (adverse party to motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and if he does not, then summary judgment shall be entered against him).

Subsection (e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to identify specific record facts creating a genuine issue rather than rely on unsupported assertions or pleadings.

Grant v. Phoenix on Peachtree Condominium Ass'n · filed 2015-03-19(e)

Because Grant has not carried his burden of pointing to evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, the association and Marshall were entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

After a defendant shows ordinary care, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that a genuine issue remains for trial.

Johns v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 2016-09-28(e)

“In view of defendant’s showing of ordinary care, it [is] up to plaintiff to show by the evidence that there remains a genuine issue for trial.”

Once a summary-judgment motion is supported by evidence, the adverse party may not rest on pleadings but must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. SMITH Et Al. · filed 2017-03-08(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported by evidence, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response . . . 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 movant supports summary judgment with specific record evidence, subsection (e) requires the adverse party to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue rather than rely on pleadings.

CALDWELL Et Al. v. CHURCH · filed 2017-06-20(e)

Because Church properly supported her motion for summary judgment with specific evidence in the record, Emil Caldwell, as the 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. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party may not rest on the pleadings and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Ratner v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, Lp · filed 2018-03-08(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.”

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the opposing party may not rest on pleading allegations or denials and must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Sage Atlanta Properties, Ltd. v. Hawxhurst · filed 2019-03-06(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.

Under subsection (e), an adverse party facing a supported summary-judgment motion may not rest on pleadings and must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Berrian v. Max Grin, LLC · filed 2023-10-30(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 [her] 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 [s]he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against [her].

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, subsection (e) bars the adverse party from resting on the pleadings and requires specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

HUIMING SONG v. EGPS SOLUTIONS I, INC. · filed 2024-03-12(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.

When a summary-judgment motion is properly supported by affidavit, the adverse party may not rest on pleading allegations or denials and must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

ALPHONSO WATERS v. CHARLES SMITH · filed 2025-04-25(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported [by affidavit] 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.

A nonmovant cannot defeat summary judgment merely by asking the court to disbelieve an uncontroverted affidavit without presenting specific contradictory evidence.

CITY OF ATLANTA v. BLOCK, INC. OF DELAWARE · filed 2025-06-17(e)

Here, the City presented no evidence — impeachment or otherwise — contradicting Thai’s affidavit. Nor does it argue that the trial court failed to view any evidence or inferences in the light most favorable to the City. Instead, the City asks us to find that the trial court should have ... disbelieved Thai’s uncontroverted testimony. This we may not legally do.

Once a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the adverse party must identify specific facts creating a genuine issue and cannot rely on the assertion that ultimate proof is unnecessary at that stage.

ARNOLD v. FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT, INC. · filed 2025-06-25(e)

While true, it also does not absolve her from her duty to come forward with “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” once a summary judgment motion has been made and suppoted. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

After a defendant makes a prima facie limitations showing, the plaintiff cannot rely on assertions in a brief and must respond with affidavits or other competent evidence identifying specific facts for trial.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL, N.A. v. WILLIAM E. WHITAKER AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE · filed 2025-07-02(e)

In light of the aforementioned evidence reflecting that the Bank should have discovered the mistake in the legal description of the collateral, the Bank was not permitted to rest upon mere assertions regarding whether a new title report should have been run, but instead was required to respond by affidavits or other competent evidence that “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Section 9-11-56(e) requires an opposing party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial when the summary judgment motion is properly supported.

Bradley v. Tattnall Bank · filed 1984-04-09(e)

We interpret Meade as holding that although it is permissible to allege defenses in a conclusory format, where a plaintiff files a motion to strike such defenses, or 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. (See § 9-11-56 (e), which provides, in pertinent part: “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.”)

When a supported summary judgment motion is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

B-T Two, Inc. v. Bennett · filed 2011-01-27(e)

Buffalo’s contends that this theory of negligence fails because Bennett has come forward with no evidence showing that Buffalo’s had any knowledge, much less superior knowledge, of the danger that Bennett might be assaulted at the party. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (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 ... of his pleading, but his response . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”). We agree that such evidence is absent from the record and is fatal to Bennett’s second theory of negligence.

A bare assertion that a material factual issue exists, without identifying or supporting one, does not defeat an otherwise proper summary-judgment motion.

Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt · filed 1986-09-09(e)

Under the Georgia Civil Practice Act, a mere assertion that there is an issue of material fact, without more, is insufficient basis upon which to oppose an otherwise appropriate motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

When a supported motion is unanswered by contrary evidence, the opponent cannot rest on pleading allegations and summary judgment may be entered if otherwise appropriate.

Dein v. Landey · filed 1987-02-03(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.

The statute does not require an adverse party to respond to a summary-judgment motion, and no duty to offer counterevidence arises until the movant produces evidence demanding judgment.

Horton v. Wombles · filed 1987-03-18

Contrary to appellant’s argument, OCGA § 9-11-56 does not require an adverse party to respond to a motion for summary judgment.

After a summary-judgment motion is properly supported, the opponent must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue rather than rely on pleading allegations or denials.

Blessing v. Doctors Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 1987-10-05(e)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) provides that “[w]hen 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.”

After a summary-judgment motion is supported by evidence, the opponent must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue and cannot rest on pleading allegations.

Southerland v. Dalton Paving & Construction, Inc. · filed 1988-03-18(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported by evidence, respondent may not rest upon the mere allegations of his pleadings, but his responses must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

Once a movant’s evidence destroys the pleaded theory, section 56(e) requires the opponent to present specific facts supporting any alternative theory of liability.

West End Investments of Atlanta, Inc. v. Hills · filed 1988-09-07(e)

When appellee’s allegation that appellant was liable for Dr. Read’s negligence because he was a hospital employee was pierced by Ransdell’s affidavit, to avoid entry of summary judgment against her appellee was obligated to come forward with at least an allegation from which appellant’s liability on some other basis, such as apparent agency, could be maintained.

There is no default summary judgment; failing to respond waives the right to present opposing evidence but does not entitle the movant to judgment without affirmative support in the record.

McGivern v. First Capital Income Properties, Ltd. · filed 1988-09-22(c)

There is no such thing as a “default summary judgment.” By failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment, a party merely waives his right to present evidence in opposition to the motion. It does not automatically follow that the motion should be granted.

When a supported summary-judgment motion is met only by allegations or denials and no competent contradictory evidence, the movant's evidence is treated as undisputed.

Heard v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc. · filed 1989-02-15(e)

However, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), when a motion for summary judgment is supported by evidence, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegation or denial of the pleadings. Plaintiff presented no evidence to contradict the reporter’s sworn statement.

Section 56(e) requires an opponent to a properly supported motion to set forth specific facts showing a genuine trial issue.

Doug Howle's Paces Ferry Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit Corp. · filed 1989-05-01(e)

In order to counter a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Section 56(e) permits judgment when the opponent presents no specific facts after a properly supported motion.

Wilson v. Wickes-Homecrafters, Inc. · filed 1989-05-05(e)

No such specific facts having been presented by appellant here, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. Id.

An opponent who cannot refute figures established by a supported motion fails to satisfy subsection (e)'s duty to present specific facts showing a genuine issue.

Lightwerk Studios, Inc. v. Door Units of Georgia, Inc. · filed 1989-05-23(e)

Lightwerk was unable successfully to refute the figures set forth by appellee and therefore did not meet its statutory burden.

The statute neither requires an adverse party to respond to a summary-judgment motion nor treats failure to respond as an admission of the movant's asserted facts.

Cincinnati Insurance v. Perimeter Tractor & Trailer Repair, Inc. · filed 1989-07-11

OCGA § 9-11-56 does not require any adverse party to respond to a motion for summary judgment, and neither it nor Rule 6.5 of the Uniform Rules sanctions the failure to respond with the admission of facts as presented by the movant.

Section 56 requires a nonmovant to rebut a prima facie showing with evidence creating a jury issue.

Kirby v. Harris · filed 1989-09-26

The trial court properly granted summary judgment.

Once a movant pierces allegations of personal liability with evidence of representative capacity, the opponent must rebut that showing to avoid summary judgment.

Button Gwinnett Landfill, Inc. v. Sinnock · filed 1989-10-19(e)

Thus, Sinnock pierced the allegations of the complaint which asserted his personal liability, and he would be entitled the grant of summary judgment unless the Landfill rebutted these matters. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Once a defendant's motion pierces the pleadings, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue or suffer summary judgment.

Barnes v. Johnson · filed 1990-02-20(e)

Johnson was required to set forth specific facts showing there was a genuine issue for trial or summary judgment would be entered against her.

Summary judgment is proper when the nonmovant files no response and adduces no evidence showing a genuine material factual dispute or supporting bare allegations.

Simmons v. Holsey Temple Christian Methodist Church · filed 1989-11-02

Moreover, appellant has adduced no indicia of the existence of a dispute regarding any genuine issue of material fact or any competent evidence to support her bare allegations as to lack of notice, failure of the trial court to consider all the evidence, the existence of an actionable (i.e., criminal) conspiracy, or the commission of specific “crimes” or wrongs by the defendants.

Section 56(e) requires the opponent of a prima facie motion to set forth specific facts showing a genuine trial issue.

Bell v. Coronet Insurance · filed 1990-10-10(e)

Responding to Coronet’s motion, plaintiff failed to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Thus, Coronet was entitled to summary judgment even before the second deposition was submitted. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Section 56 requires evidence to be viewed in favor of the parties opposing summary judgment.

Joiner v. Lee · filed 1990-11-09

In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact remaining, we must view the evidence in favor of the Joiners, opponents of the summary judgment motions.

Section 56(e) bars an adverse party from resting on pleading allegations after a supported motion and requires specific facts showing a trial issue.

Evans v. City of Atlanta · filed 1991-06-05(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 affidavit 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).

Once an affidavit pierces an allegation of agency, the opponent must present evidence showing a genuine issue concerning that relationship.

Hill-Everett v. Jones · filed 1990-12-04(e)

In light of Dr. Lumpkin’s affidavit, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to present evidence showing a genuine issue for trial with regard to the agency allegations. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). Plaintiff failed to do so.

An opponent who fails to counter the movant's evidence with specific facts showing a genuine issue cannot avoid summary judgment through unsupported supposition.

Kelley v. Baker Protective Services, Inc. · filed 1991-01-24(e)

Appellants having failed to counter appellee’s evidence by setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

When a supported summary-judgment motion is made, the opponent must respond with affidavits or other specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Robinson v. Starr · filed 1990-10-09(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported . . ., an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided . . ., 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).

An opponent's unsupported contention does not rebut undisputed evidence establishing the movant's right to recover on a promissory note.

S & W Masonry Contractor, Inc. v. Jamison Co. · filed 1991-04-03

This contention is insufficient to rebut the undisputed evidence showing that plaintiff is entitled to recover for the debt evidenced by the promissory note.

Section 56(c) permits judgment when the respondent’s evidence is insufficient to show a genuine material issue for trial.

Sarantis v. Kroger Company · filed 1991-10-21(c)

his response was not sufficient to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

After a movant pierces the complaint, the opponent must demonstrate any viable alternative theory rather than rely only on the pleading.

Nexus Services, Inc. v. Manning Tronics, Inc. · filed 1991-09-19(c)

If appellant had a viable claim notwithstanding the pierced allegations of its complaint, the burden was upon it so to demonstrate.

After a movant points to the absence of evidence supporting fraud, the opponent must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Brown v. Buffington · filed 1992-03-17(e)

Having done so, Brown was obliged to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).”

Section 56(c) permits judgment when the opponent files no affidavits and the record contains no factual material creating a dispute.

T. L. Rogers Oil Co. v. Sommers Co. · filed 1992-03-17(c)

The court correctly granted summary judgment.

After a defendant points to the absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff may not rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Ekokotu v. Pizza Hut, Inc. · filed 1992-09-09(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 movant points to an absence of evidence supporting the claim, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Alco Standard Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation · filed 1992-12-04(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 motion is supported by affidavit testimony, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to offer counterevidence creating a triable issue.

Majeske v. Jekyll Island State Park Authority · filed 1993-06-03(e)

Appellants have offered no counterevidence giving rise to a triable issue. ... Appellee was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Once a defendant shows an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Bridges v. Department of Transportation · filed 1993-06-11(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).”

A nonmovant fails to satisfy subsection (e) by not pointing to record facts that create a jury issue on a material date.

Heffernan v. Johnson · filed 1993-06-23(e)

In this regard, Heffernan did not respond to Johnson’s motion for summary judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) and ... by pointing to facts in the record creating a jury issue as to the date the project was completed substantially.

Under subsection (e), vague references to evidence not placed in the record do not provide the specific, competent proof needed to rebut a summary-judgment movant’s showing.

Walker v. Burnett · filed 1999-11-23(e)

Walker’s few references to the allegedly favorable evidence of discrimination are vague and unsupported by specific evidence in the record, i.e., the depositions themselves. As such, Walker has failed to present any specific, competent evidence to rebut Burnett’s assertion that no such evidence exists.

A summary-judgment nonmovant must identify specific record evidence creating a triable issue, and appellate assertions or inaccessible linked materials are not evidence.

TAYLOR v. MOOD RITE, LLC · filed 2026-05-15(c)

We cannot rely on documents that are not in the record. ... Moreover, the parties’ briefs are not evidence.

Neither complete nor partial summary judgment is authorized when the record raises jury questions material to the complaint.

Georgia Auto Sales, Inc. v. Hinrichsen · filed 1974-02-20(d)

Nor was there anything in the record which would have authorized the trial court to award defendants a complete or partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs complaint. See Code Ann. § 81A-156 (d).

Partial summary judgment may resolve an undisputed portion of a debt while leaving disputed additional sums for trial.

Applebaum v. David, Inc. · filed 1978-06-23(d)

The trial court complied with Code Ann. § 81A-156 (d) relating to partial summary judgment. The appellant in opposing appellee’s motion for summary judgment did not by affidavit set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial as to those matters contained in the motion for partial summary judgment, and, as a result, "[t]he evidence in support of [appellee’s] motion for summary judgment pierced the bare denial of the debt in the defendant’s answer.”

A judgment that does not resolve the whole case or grant all requested relief is a partial summary judgment under subsection (d).

Ford v. Whitmire · filed 1980-04-21(d)

In support of her motion for summary judgment she was awarded the sum of $7,500 which, under Code Ann. § 81A-156 (d) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; 1975, pp. 757, 759), could only be stated to be an award of a partial summary judgment, that is, "not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief sought.”

Section 56(d) permits a court to adjudicate liability without entering judgment for a damages amount.

First National Bank & Trust Co. v. AMF Skamper Corp. · filed 1976-11-12(d)

We might state further there was no evidence as to the damages; however, the trial judge did not enter a judgment for any amount and was no doubt merely adjudicating liability under Par. (d) of § 56 of the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,660; 1967, pp. 226,238; Code Ann. § 81A-156 (d)). We assume that such was the case and decide this case accordingly.

Section 56 does not permit a court to grant summary judgment sua sponte when neither party has moved for it.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1983-02-24

To the extent that the order might be construed as the grant of summary judgment to appellees, the trial court erred, no motion for summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156) having been made by either party.

Section 56 bars summary judgment in an equitable action when affidavits create a genuine factual issue, even though the trial judge could resolve that issue at an equity trial.

Beaulieu of America, Inc. v. L. T. Dennard & Co. · filed 1984-05-22

Here, however, the trial court did not undertake to exercise the authority which it so clearly has to resolve disputed questions of fact, but rather rejected the laches defense as a matter of law. Upon review, we find that the affidavits filed on behalf of Beaulieu of America, Inc. create a genuine issue of fact, and summary judgment was inappropriate. OCGA § 9-11-56.

An order purporting to grant partial summary judgment is directly appealable without a certificate of immediate review.

Edelschick v. Blanchard · filed 1985-12-20(h)

Since the trial court purported to grant a partial summary judgment, the order is appealable without a certificate for immediate review. [OCGA § 9-11-56 (h)].

Subsection (d) permits partial summary judgment that eliminates claims based on acts outside the applicable limitations period while leaving timely acts for further proceedings.

Edmonds v. Bates · filed 1986-02-07(d)

For the reasons discussed in our opinion of the main appeal, and viewing all ambiguities and conclusions most favorably toward Edmonds as respondent, Dr. Bates is entitled under OCGA § 9-3-71 and OCGA § 9-11-56 (d) to partial summary judgment as to any acts or occurrences prior to March 1, 1982.

A trial court need enter a partial-summary-judgment order under subsection (d) only when doing so is practicable and need not use the procedure to pretry the case.

International Indemnity Co. v. Odom · filed 1985-03-13(d)

It is only where “practicable,” that a trial court should enter an order pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (d). Thus, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to enter an interlocutory order regarding bad faith.

When a claimant's summary-judgment motion does not specify that only partial relief is sought, it is inferred to seek general or plenary judgment on the claim.

Anderson v. Hendrix · filed 1985-09-03(a)

Appellee’s motion does not specify whether he is seeking general or partial summary judgment. It is elementary that the failure to specify that one is asking for only partial relief will give rise to the inference that one seeks a general or plenary judgment in one’s favor.