Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

A grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable under subsection (h) without a discretionary application.

Sayavedra v. Soiree, Inc., D/B/A Tara Geurard Soiree · filed 2023-11-07(h)

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

A grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable under subsection (h).

Barnes v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2023-12-18(h)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), however, the grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party is directly appealable.

Subsection (h) permits a direct and immediate appeal from a grant of partial summary judgment on any issue.

Okpara v. Williams · filed 2024-03-13(h)

The grant of partial summary judgment on any issue may be appealed directly and immediately.

Subsection (h) permits a direct and immediate appeal from a grant of partial summary judgment on any issue.

Clarke v. Franko · filed 2024-04-11(h)

The grant of partial summary judgment on any issue may be appealed directly and immediately.

A grant of partial summary judgment on any issue may be appealed directly and immediately under subsection (h).

Paul v. Youmans · filed 2024-10-01(h)

The grant of partial summary judgment on any issue may be appealed directly and immediately. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); Ellis v. Oles, 364 Ga. App. 133, 133-134 (2) (873 SE2d 251) (2022).

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

WILLIS v. COWABUNGA, INC. · filed 2024-10-23(h)

As a matter of statutory law, orders granting partial summary judgment to a party are directly appealable.

Subsection (h) permits a direct appeal from a partial grant of summary judgment on any issue or as to any party.

E.P. Properties, Inc. v. Wright · filed 2025-03-05(h)

Because EP Properties appeals from the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment to Wright, we have jurisdiction over this appeal under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), which provides that “[a]n order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.”

Section 9-11-56(h) permits an immediate appeal from a grant of summary judgment even when the judgment is not final, but does not require one.

Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc. · filed 2017-09-29(h)

In other words, even though the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Depianti was not itself final, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11- 56(h) provided Jan-Pro the right to file an immediate appeal of the decision (though Jan-Pro was in no way required to do so).

Section 9-11-56(h) permits an immediate appeal from a partial summary judgment, but the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the ruling.

Harmon v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company · filed 2024-01-26(h)

Harmon elected to invoke her right to an immediate appeal from the summary judgment ruling under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). But that appeal had to be dismissed, because she did not file her notice of appeal within 30 days of the summary judgment ruling.

A summary-judgment affidavit is admissible to the extent it recounts matters within the affiant’s personal knowledge, while inadmissible portions may be disregarded.

Manesh v. Baker Equipment Engineering Co. · filed 2000-11-28(e)

However, the record contained Bellew’s affidavit, which contained his personal recollection of his maintenance of the ladder. To the extent that the affidavit was based on his personal knowledge, it was admissible.

A court may consider an admissible portion of an affidavit that satisfies subsection (e) while disregarding inadmissible portions.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Mosley · filed 2006-07-13(e)

Pretermitting whether the remaining paragraphs contained in Ms. Ray’s affidavit are admissible and/or whether the trial court relied upon them in its ruling, the paragraph relied upon by this Court and quoted above satisfies OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) and thus can be considered.

Even an affidavit that satisfies subsection (e)’s foundational requirements must be excluded to the extent it is irrelevant to the claims against the summary-judgment movant.

Elrod v. Sunflower Meadows Development LLC · filed 2013-07-03(e)

However, in considering affidavits submitted in support or opposition to summary judgment, “[i]rrelevant matter should be excluded.”

Defects in an affidavit under subsection (e), including lack of personal knowledge and missing referenced papers, are waived if the opposing party does not object below.

Sidhi Investment Corporation v. Thrift · filed 2016-03-10(e)

Nevertheless, Sidhi did not object to the clerk’s affidavit during the hearing on Sidhi’s motion for summary judgment. As a result, any infirmity in the clerk’s affidavit is waived.

Section 9-11-56 does not categorically bar an attorney's personal-knowledge affidavit in support of or opposition to summary judgment.

METRO HOLDINGS, LLC v. EVERNEST HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2025-10-21(e)

Indeed, there seems to be no blanket prohibition against an attorney filing an affidavit in support of or opposition to summary judgment.

Section 9-11-56(e) limits an affiant to facts within her personal knowledge; she may say she did not hear an inquiry but cannot swear that it did not occur.

BUTLER v. DOE Et Al. · filed 2014-07-31(e)

We note that Doe is limited to swearing only to those facts that are within her own personal knowledge; consequently, she can aver only that she did not hear any such inquiry by Butler.

On appeal from summary judgment, the nonmovant may advance arguments that the movant failed to meet subsection (c)’s burden even if those arguments were not raised as objections below.

American Central Insurance v. Lee · filed 2001-06-11(c)

the issue in an appeal from the grant of summary judgment is whether the movant met the burden established by OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) and, in addressing that issue on appeal, the non-moving party is entitled to advance all arguments without regard to whether they were raised by way of objections below.

When a hearing is held, subsection (c) requires a summary-judgment motion to be served at least 30 days before the hearing.

Automated Solutions Enterprises, Inc. v. Clearvtew Software, Inc. · filed 2002-06-18(c)

Where a hearing is held, OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) requires motions for summary judgment to be served at least 30 days before the hearing.

Subsection (e) codifies the common-law affidavit requirements of a written oath stating sworn facts, the affiant’s signature, and an authorized officer’s attestation that the oath was administered.

Dodson v. Dean · filed 2002-06-19(e)

[a]ffidavits must conform to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e), which is a codification of the common law requirements as to affidavits. A complete affidavit must satisfy three essential elements: (a) a written oath embodying the facts as sworn to by the ... affiant; (b) the signature of the affiant; and (c) the attestation by an officer authorized to administer the oath that the affidavit was actually sworn by the affiant before the officer.

A notarized letter is not an affidavit for summary judgment unless its contents are sworn to in person before a notary or another officer authorized to administer oaths.

Consumer Solutions Financial Services, Inc. v. Heritage Bank · filed 2009-09-30(e)

Thus, Hill’s letter was not an “affidavit” for purposes of summary judgment. “[A]n affidavit must be sworn to in person before a notary public or other officer empowered to administer oaths.”

A declaration under penalty of perjury that is not sworn and certified by a proper officer has no force as summary-judgment evidence.

Thomas v. HL-A Co. · filed 2011-11-30(e)

The declarations under penalty of perjury submitted by HL-A do not meet this test. The HL-A managers did not swear to the truths of their statements, nor were their swearings certified by a proper officer. Consequently, their declarations had no force, no validity, and amounted to nothing, when standing alone, or when construed in connection with other evidence.

Section 9-11-56 requires each party to present its best case on summary judgment, including viable legal theories and specific evidence supporting factual issues.

Pfeiffer v. Georgia Department of Transportation · filed 2002-11-26

Allowing a party to raise new arguments also ignores the duties and responsibilities placed on the parties by OCGA § 9-11-56. Each party has a duty to present his best case on a motion for summary judgment.

Section 9-11-56 requires each party to present its best case on summary judgment, including every viable theory of recovery, or risk an adjudication on the merits.

All Tech Co. v. Laimer Unicon, LLC · filed 2006-09-18

Allowing a party to raise new arguments also ignores the duties and responsibilities placed on the parties by OCGA § 9-11-56. Each party has a duty to present his best case on a motion for summary judgment. [Our Supreme] Court has specifically held that, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have a statutory duty to produce whatever viable theory of recovery they might have or run the risk of an adjudication on the merits of their case.

A plaintiff responding to summary judgment must produce every viable theory of recovery or risk an adjudication on the merits that bars later amendment to retry the case under an available theory.

Smith v. Lockridge · filed 2010-11-08(e)

Consequently, “in responding to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have a statutory duty ‘to produce whatever viable theory of recovery they might have or run the risk of an adjudication on the merits of their case.’ ”

Subsection (e) requires a party responding to summary judgment to produce any viable recovery theory or risk an adjudication on the merits of the entire case.

Wilann Properties I, LLC v. Georgia Power Company · filed 2014-11-19(e)

Consequently, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have a statutory duty to produce whatever viable theory of recovery they might have or run the risk of an adjudication on the merits of their case.

A party responding to summary judgment must present every viable theory of recovery or risk an adjudication on the merits.

Lafontaine v. Watley · filed 2017-10-31

Allowing a party to raise new arguments also ignores the duties and responsibilities placed on the parties by OCGA § 9-11-56. Each party has a duty to present his best case on a motion for summary judgment. This Court has specifically held that, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have a statutory duty to produce whatever viable theory of recovery they might have or run the risk of an adjudication on the merits of the case.

A party opposing summary judgment must present its case in full before the court rules, and a trial court may refuse a postjudgment affidavit offered to repair earlier evidence.

Edokpolor v. Grady Memorial Hospital Corporation · filed 2018-09-14(c)

“[I]t is the duty of each party at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment to present his or her case in full.”

A party must present its best summary-judgment case and all viable recovery theories in the trial court rather than withholding a theory until appeal.

WENTZ v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC., D/B/A EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MIDTOWN · filed 2021-06-02

Allowing a party to raise new arguments also ignores the duties and responsibilities placed on the parties by OCGA § 9-11-56 . Each party has a duty to present his best case on a motion for summary judgment. This Court has specifically held that, in responding to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have a statutory duty to produce whatever viable theory of recovery they might have or run the risk of an adjudication on the merits of their case.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue exists as to an essential claim element and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Reidling v. City of Gainesville · filed 2006-07-26(c)

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact [as to any essential element of a claim] and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

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

Lockhart v. Marine Manufacturing Corp. · filed 2006-08-15

A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiffs case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiffs claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards.

A defendant satisfies subsection (c) by showing no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on an essential element, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Dew v. Motel Properties, Inc. · filed 2006-10-05(c)

If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiffs claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.... 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.

Subsection (c) authorizes summary judgment when no genuine issue exists as to an essential claim element and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Cook v. Micro Craft, Inc. · filed 2003-06-19(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any essential element of a claim, since all other contested issues are rendered immaterial and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

When the record lacks evidence on an essential element of a claim, that claim fails on summary judgment and disputes about other facts are immaterial.

Hunsucker v. Belford · filed 2010-05-14(c)

If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiffs claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.

A claim fails on summary judgment when the record lacks evidence creating a genuine issue on any essential element.

Seymour Electrical & Air Conditioning Service, Inc. v. Statom · filed 2011-05-26(c)

If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiffs claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards.

A plaintiff's claim cannot survive summary judgment without evidence creating a genuine issue on every essential element, regardless of other factual disputes.

Regional Finance Company of Georgia, LLC v. Pearson · filed 2024-10-30(c)

If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.

When the record lacks evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue on an essential element, the claim fails and all other factual disputes become immaterial.

STANTON v. STOUT KAISER, LLC · filed 2025-01-24(c)

If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff’s claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the evidence is lacking on any essential element, because failure of one essential element renders all other factual disputes immaterial.

Dass v. Pinson · filed 2025-03-18(c)

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment when evidence is lacking as to any one of these essential elements. ... In other words, “[i]f one essential element cannot be proven, all of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.”

Subsection (e) does not allow conclusory affidavit allegations or bare contentions lacking a factual evidentiary basis to defeat summary judgment.

Kirkland v. Earth Fare, Inc. · filed 2008-02-29(e)

“It is axiomatic that conclusory allegations by way of an affidavit will not be sufficient to avoid summary judgment” ... OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). ... “Bare conclusions and contentions unsupported by an evidentiary basis in fact are insufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment.”

Subsection (e) subjects affidavits opposing summary judgment to the rules of evidence, so an unsupported conclusion cannot be treated as evidence.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2003-07-08(e)

“Affidavits in opposition to motions for summary judgment must conform to OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) as to the rules of evidence.” ... A conclusion unsupported by specific facts “is a bare conclusion and cannot be considered as evidence.”

Allegations, conclusory facts, and conclusions of law cannot be used to support or defeat summary judgment under subsection (c).

Georgia Casualty & Surety Company v. Salter's · filed 2012-11-16(c)

“[a]llegations, conclusory facts, and conclusions of law cannot be utilized to support or defeat motions for summary judgment.”

Allegations, conclusory facts, and conclusions of law cannot be used to support or defeat summary judgment under subsection (c).

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Salter's Industrial Service, Inc. · filed 2012-11-16(c)

“[allegations, conclusory facts, and conclusions of law cannot be utilized to support or defeat motions for summary judgment.”

A summary-judgment affidavit must be based on personal knowledge, state admissible facts, and affirmatively show the affiant's competence, and a court should disregard hearsay, unsupported conclusions, and other inadmissible matter.

STERLING PLANET, INC. v. GRP HOLDCO, LLC · filed 2025-03-11(e)

Affidavits submitted in support of or opposition to summary judgment “shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in the evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.” ... To the extent that such an affidavit contains “hearsay, unsupported conclusions, and other inadmissible material,” the trial court should strike or refrain from considering those portions.

Legal conclusions in summary-judgment materials are not evidence and must be disregarded.

STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC. · filed 2026-06-02(c)

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, we are not required to accept legal conclusions in the supporting materials.

Section 9-11-56 governs civil RICO forfeiture summary-judgment motions when the RICO chapter supplies no special procedure, requiring the movant to identify an absence of evidence before the opponent must identify specific supporting evidence.

Pabey v. State · filed 2003-07-10

Because no special rules exist within the RICO chapter regarding motions for summary judgment, OCGA § 9-11-56 governs Pabey’s motion. ... 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 losing summary-judgment party who invokes subsection (h)’s immediate appeal but suffers dismissal for a fatal procedural default cannot resubmit the same matter on appeal from the final judgment.

Eckerd Corp. v. Alterman Real Estate, Ltd. · filed 2004-02-25(h)

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

A party that invokes subsection (h)'s immediate appeal from summary judgment but suffers a fatal procedural default cannot submit the same matter again on appeal from the final judgment.

Ferdinand v. City of East Point · filed 2009-11-30(h)

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

A party that invokes subsection (h)'s immediate appellate review but suffers dismissal for a fatal procedural default cannot later resubmit the same matter for review on appeal from the final judgment.

Houston County v. Harrell · filed 2010-05-17(h)

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

Subsection (h) gives a procedurally defective direct appeal from partial summary judgment the same res judicata effect as a defective appeal from a final judgment.

Canoeside Properties, Inc. v. Livsey · filed 2003-11-26(h)

In Mitchell, this Court was considering a direct appeal of a partial grant of summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). We held there that “[i]f the losing party suffers dismissal of his § 9-11-56 (h) appeal for failure to fulfill procedural requirements, the losing party should, in return for his privilege of direct appeal, suffer the same sanction of res judicata which attaches to a final judgment from which a procedurally defective appeal is taken.”

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a subsection (f) request for additional discovery time when the nonmovant had ample time but pursued little discovery and failed to file an invited motion to compel.

Piedmont Hospital, Inc. v. Reddick · filed 2004-03-24(f)

The trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying Reddick's request under OCGA § 9-11-56(f).

Subsection (f) does not require a continuance for discovery when the opposing parties lacked diligence in pursuing discovery and had represented that discovery was complete.

Scott v. Government Employees Insurance Co. · filed 2010-07-12(f)

Given the Daniels’ lack of diligence in pursuing any discovery against Smith and their representation that discovery was complete, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting GEICO’s motion for summary judgment.

Relief under subsection (f) is discretionary and may be denied when the opponent waits until its response deadline, shows no diligent discovery effort, and fails to show that additional discovery would add substance to the opposition.

Glenn v. Hernandez · filed 2019-10-30(f)

“The granting or denial of a motion under OCGA § 9-11-56 (f) lies in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion.” ... Under the circumstances presented, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court that would justify reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Schumacher.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment only when the filed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Litsky v. Schaub · filed 2004-08-25(c)

And summary judgment is proper only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

A summary-judgment movant must use the enumerated record materials to show no genuine material fact issue and entitlement to judgment, including proof of the claim's breach and damages elements.

Jackson v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC · filed 2012-02-16(c)

Under the summary judgment statute, OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), “[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Thus, Cavalry’s motion, affidavit, and supporting documents must demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment on its breach of contract claim by proving the breach and resultant damages.

Subsection (c) permits a defendant to prevail when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Williams v. GK MAHAVIR, INC. · filed 2012-02-24(c)

A defendant may prevail at summary judgment by showing the court that “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Trendmark Homes, Inc. v. Bank of North Georgia · filed 2012-03-19(c)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) authorizes summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Union Carbide Corp. v. Fields · filed 2012-03-20(c)

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Huggins v. Powell · filed 2012-03-28(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

McCrary v. Middle Georgia Management Services, Inc. · filed 2012-03-28(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Casualty v. Woodcraft by MacDonald, Inc. · filed 2012-03-29(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as ... a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Berni v. Cousins Properties, Inc. · filed 2012-06-29(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) entitles a moving party to summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Holloway v. U. S. Bank Trust N. A. · filed 2012-08-22(c)

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) entitles a movant to summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

Kaiser Ford v. La'rhonda Reddick, of the Estate of Ruby Lee Gloster · filed 2012-12-20(c)

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First Congregational Church v. Fulton County Board of Tax Assessors · filed 2013-03-27(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Woodcraft ex rel. MacDonald, Inc. v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 2013-05-20(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment only when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Zeagler · filed 2013-09-23(c)

Summary judgment is proper only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Taylor v. Thunderbird Lanes, LLC D/B/A Stars and Strikes Family Entertainment Centers · filed 2013-09-24(c)

It is well established that summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) entitles a party to summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Advertising Jv, LLC · filed 2013-11-08(c)

A party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dj Mortgage, LLC v. Synovus Bank D/B/A Bank of North Georgia · filed 2013-11-22(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. v. Twenty Six Properties, LLC · filed 2014-02-06(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law[.]” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

City of Atlanta v. Shavers · filed 2014-03-11(c)

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) warrants summary judgment only when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Miller County Board of Education v. McIntosh · filed 2014-03-20(c)

At the outset of our analysis, we note that summary judgment is only warranted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Internet Brands, Inc. v. Jape · filed 2014-06-24(c)

“Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).”

Subsection (c) warrants summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Castellanos v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company · filed 2014-07-31(c)

[S]ummary judgment is warranted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Burds v. Hipes · filed 2014-09-23(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled ... to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) entitles a movant to summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

Wagner v. Robinson · filed 2014-09-26(c)

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

JUSTICE Et Al. v. SCI GEORGIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. Et Al. · filed 2014-11-19(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First Citizens Bank & Trust, Inc. v. Twm Enterprises, LLC · filed 2014-11-21(c)

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact ... and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First Citizens Bank & Trust, Inc. v. Ruddell · filed 2014-11-21(c)

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

ARCHER FORESTRY, LLC Et Al. v. DOLATOWSKI · filed 2015-04-10(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled ... to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) requires summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. v. Tanner · filed 2015-11-20(c)

“The judgment sought shall ... be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Subsection (c) entitles a party to summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Davis v. Brantley County School District · filed 2015-11-23(c)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), a party is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law[.]”

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment only when the listed materials show no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

Bo Phillips Company, Inc. v. R.L. King Properties, LLC · filed 2016-03-23(c)

Summary judgment is warranted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Lima Delta Company v. Global Aerospace, Inc. · filed 2016-07-12(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) warrants summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Liberty Capital, LLC. v. First Chatham Bank · filed 2016-07-13(c)

[S]ummary judgment is warranted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law.

RIGBY Et Al. v. FLUE-CURED TOBACCO COOPERATIVE STABILIZATION CORPORATION · filed 2016-11-03(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

City of Atlanta v. Hogan Construction Group, LLC · filed 2017-06-07(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material factual issue and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Eichenblatt v. piedmont/maple, LLC · filed 2017-06-14(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Johnson Street Properties, LLC v. Clure · filed 2017-09-13(c)

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

After a defendant identifies an absence of evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Rouse v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority · filed 2004-09-08(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).

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

Rivers v. H. S. Beauty Queen, Inc. · filed 2010-11-18(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.

A defendant without the trial burden need only show an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Executive Excellence, LLC v. Martin Bros. Investments, LLC · filed 2011-03-30(c), (e)

A defendant who will 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.

A defendant lacking the trial burden may point to an absence of evidence on an essential element, and the nonmovant must then present specific facts showing a genuine issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Dennis Perry Homes, Inc. v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Co. · filed 2011-09-16(c), (e)

[A] defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case, but may point out by reference to the evidence in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support any essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. ... 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 defendant can obtain summary judgment by identifying an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the plaintiff must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Brock v. Harris · filed 2011-11-10(c)

The defendant does not need to affirmatively disprove the plaintiffs case, but may prevail simply by pointing to the lack of evidence. If the defendant does so, the plaintiff cannot rest on his pleadings, but must point to specific evidence that gives rise to a triable issue of fact.

A defendant without the trial burden need not disprove the claim and may instead identify an absence of evidence on an essential element, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Meredith v. Thompson · filed 2011-11-18(c), (e)

Thus, the rule with regard to summary judgment is that a defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case, but may point out by reference to the evidence in the record that there is ... an absence of evidence to support any essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. ... 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.”

Once a movant identifies an absence of record evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, the nonmovant cannot rest on pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Foothills Pharmacies, Inc. v. Powers · filed 2012-01-06

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

A summary-judgment movant may discharge its burden by identifying record evidence showing an absence of support for the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

MacFarlan v. Gastroenterolgy · filed 2012-09-19

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. . . . [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. 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 summary-judgment movant may discharge its burden by identifying record evidence showing an absence of support for the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

MacFarlan v. Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, Inc. · filed 2012-09-19

To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.... [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. 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 summary-judgment movant may show an absence of evidence on the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Jones v. Valdosta Board of Education · filed 2012-10-03

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

When a movant without the trial burden identifies an absence of evidence on an essential element, the respondent must identify record evidence creating a triable issue.

Watkins v. Latif · filed 2013-06-19(c)

If a movant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial notes the absence of evidence to support an essential element of the respondent’s case, the respondent must then identify evidence in the record giving rise to a triable issue.

A summary-judgment movant may identify an absence of record evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Princess L. Eatmon v. Doris Weeks, as Administrator of the Estate of Flaval Gaston Weeks · filed 2013-07-16

[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. 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 identifies 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 pleadings.

Community Music Centers of Atlanta, LLC F/K/A Little 5 Points Music Center, LLC v. Jw Broadcasting, Inc. · filed 2013-08-27(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. ... 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. Id. (citing OCGA § 9-11-56 (e)).

A defendant without the trial burden may identify an absence of record evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Theron Ivey Davis, Jr. v. Effingham County Board of Commissioners · filed 2014-07-01(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).

A summary-judgment movant may identify an absence of record evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Felicia L. Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Lp · filed 2014-11-21

[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. 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 summary-judgment movant may carry section 9-11-56's burden by negating an essential element or showing an absence of evidence on it, after which the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Youngblood v. All American Quality Foods, Inc. · filed 2016-10-11

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

George v. Hercules Real Estate Services, Inc. · filed 2016-11-18(e)

If the moving party discharges its burden by pointing out an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, “the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.” ... citing OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

A summary-judgment movant may carry its burden by negating an essential claim element or demonstrating an absence of evidence supporting one; after that showing, the nonmovant must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Woods v. A.R.E. Accessories, LLC · filed 2018-05-24

The moving party may carry this burden either by (1) presenting evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, i.e., affirmatively disproving the element with evidence which makes it impossible for the [nonmoving party] to prove the element at trial; or (2) demonstrating an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim. 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 without the trial burden identifies an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant's case, the nonmovant may not rest on the pleadings and must identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Mullis v. Lora J. Welch · filed 2018-06-19(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 . . . 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. O. C. G. A. § 9-11-56 (e).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when the opposing evidence creates no genuine issue of material fact.

Adams v. Gay · filed 2004-10-01(c)

Contrary to Adams’ contention, this deposition testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 9-11-56 permits summary judgment only when facts construed against the movant plainly and palpably show no genuine issue of material fact; proximate cause and contributory negligence ordinarily remain jury questions.

Town of Register v. Fortner · filed 2005-06-16

It is axiomatic that under OCGA§ 9-11-56, summary judgment is appropriate only when the facts, construed against the movant, plainly and palpably show the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. Issues of proximate cause and contributory negligence are peculiarly questions for the jury, unless the evidence plainly and indisputably shows otherwise.

Summary judgment is improper when evidence about whether a defendant could have taken remedial action is not plain, palpable, and undisputed and therefore leaves breach of duty for the jury.

WILSON v. ALLIED PAVING CONTRACTORS, INC. · filed 2024-06-21(c)

Thus, the evidence in this case as to whether it was possible for Elder to take action to alert other motorists to the hazard at issue was “not plain, palpable, and undisputed.” Spires v. Thomas, 362 Ga. App. 344, 349 (2) (866 SE2d 856) (2021). Accordingly, it was for the jury to determine whether, given all the circumstances, Elder breached a legal duty to protect or warn other motorists of the hazard he created when he struck the cow.

Subsection (e) requires sworn or certified copies of papers referred to in an affidavit to be attached or served with it, though omission does not bar consideration when properly authenticated materials are already in the record and clearly identified.

Jones v. Orris · filed 2005-06-27(e)

However, certified copies of the medical records he reviewed were not attached to his affidavit as required by OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). ... This omission does not, by itself, automatically preclude consideration of Dr. Graham’s affidavit in our summary judgment analysis. “An affidavit need not attach material upon which it is based if that material is part of the record in the case and is before the trial court, provided that the affidavit clearly identifies the record matter upon which it is based.”

An affidavit’s averment based on a document is insufficient under subsection (e) and has no probative value when the document is neither attached to the affidavit nor otherwise in the record.

Houston Hospitals, Inc. v. Felder · filed 2019-06-14(e)

However, the death certificate is not attached to the affidavit, and does not appear to be in the record, and the plaintiffs do not specify which breast had cancer. As the death certificate was not attached to the affidavit and does not appear to be in the record, the unsupported averment in the affidavit is “insufficient under OCGA § 9-11-56(e) to meet the evidentiary standards on a motion for summary judgment and, as a matter of law, lacked any probative value.”

An affidavit need not attach the material on which it relies when that material is already in the case record before the trial court and the affidavit clearly identifies it.

Ovation Condominium Association, Inc. v. Alys W. Cox · filed 2025-03-10(e)

An affidavit need not attach material upon which it is based if that material is part of the record in the case and is before the trial court, provided that the affidavit clearly identifies the record matter upon which it is based.

Subsection (e)’s attachment requirement may be relaxed to avoid duplication when an affidavit clearly identifies records already on file, but not when the referenced records are absent from the record.

MIKE SCOTTMAN v. EMORY HEALTHCARE, INC. · filed 2025-06-16(e)

While Appellants are correct that the above-quoted requirement from OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) “has been relaxed somewhat for the practical purpose of avoiding duplication by allowing clear identification of records already on file,” Williams v. Hajosy, 210 Ga. App. 637, 638 (2) (436 SE2d 716) (1993), this exception does not apply here because the medical records referenced by Nurse Camper are not included in the record.

Section 9-11-56(e) does not require an affidavit to attach material already in the record and before the trial court if the affidavit clearly identifies it.

LAS COLINAS APARTMENTS, LLC v. MAE · filed 2022-10-12(e)

“An affidavit need not attach material upon which it is based if that material is part of the record in the case and is before the trial court, provided that the affidavit clearly identifies the record matter upon which it is based[,]” as did Miller’s affidavit.

After a defendant disproves the case or shows no evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff to identify specific, competent evidence creating a triable issue; favorable inferences cannot rest on conjecture or possibility.

Norman v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. · filed 2006-02-15(e)

On a motion for summary judgment, once the defendant pierces the plaintiffs complaint by either disproving the plaintiffs case or demonstrating that there is no evidence to support at least one essential element of the plaintiffs 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. ... Although Norman, as nonmovant, is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, such inferences cannot be based upon mere conjecture or possibility.

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

Pavement Techniques, Inc. v. Myrick · filed 2006-03-15(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 defendant identifies an absence of evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) requires the plaintiff only to point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Clive v. Gregory · filed 2006-07-13(e)

The Clives’ burden in responding to the motion for summary judgment was only to “point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA§ 9-11-56 (e).”

Once the movant identifies an absence of evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) requires the respondent to point to specific evidence creating a triable issue.

J. E. Black Construction Co. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2007-03-20(e)

Once a movant has pointed to an absence of evidence in the record sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiffs case, “[the respondent] must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA§ 9-11-56 (e).”

After a movant shows no supporting evidence through record materials, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires evidence establishing a triable issue.

COOTE v. Branch Banking and Trust Co. · filed 2008-06-24(e)

The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence of record showing no evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. Id. 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 a movant shows no supporting evidence through record materials, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires evidence establishing a triable issue.

Great Southwest Express Co. v. Great American Insurance Co. of New York · filed 2008-07-16(e)

The movant may discharge such burden by reference to affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence of record showing no evidence in support of the nonmovant’s case. Id. 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 a defendant shows no evidence on an essential element, subsection (e) requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Law v. Harris · filed 2009-01-06(e)

If the defendant discharges this burden, the plaintiff cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.

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

Russell v. Barrett · filed 2009-02-16(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 identifies a record-based absence of evidence, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Summit Automotive Group, LLC v. Clark · filed 2009-07-10(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.

After a movant identifies a record-based absence of evidence, subsection (e) bars the nonmovant from resting on the pleadings and requires specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Clay v. Rippy · filed 2009-07-16(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 identifies a record-based absence of evidence, subsection (e) requires the nonmovant to identify specific evidence creating a triable issue.

Carpenter v. CAPITAL CITY CLUB · filed 2009-07-17(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).

An inference on summary judgment cannot rest on evidence too uncertain or speculative or raising only conjecture or possibility.

Askew v. Earnestine Rogers · filed 2014-03-06(c)

“On summary judgment, an inference cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility.”

An inference on summary judgment cannot rest on evidence too uncertain or speculative or raising only conjecture or possibility.

Askew v. Rogers · filed 2014-03-06(c)

Shelah Askew’s speculative statement that it was possible that she had forgotten to lock the cage is insufficient to show that she was careless in her management of the dog as a matter of law.

Subsection (e)’s duty to present a case fully in opposition to summary judgment does not bar a prevailing party from amending unresolved claims that the summary-judgment motions did not address.

Kace Investments, L.P. v. Hull · filed 2006-03-07(e)

“The Supreme Court of Georgia held that this was too late, as plaintiffs had the obligation [under OCGA§ 9-11-56 (e)] to present their case in full in opposing the summary judgment motion or run the risk of an adjudication against them.” ... Here, Hull is not attempting to recast his complaint to avoid summary judgment. Hull won. Moreover, he has unresolved claims that were not addressed by the motions for summary judgment.

Subsection (c) requires a separate determination whether genuine material factual issues exist as to the specific allegations underlying each claim or counterclaim.

Ha&w Capital Partners, LLC v. Bhandari · filed 2018-06-27(c)

Rather, a determination of whether or not there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the specific claims of how HA&W allegedly breached the protocol was still required in order to make a summary judgment ruling. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

The affidavit requirements of subsection (e) also apply to affidavits offered in connection with a motion to dismiss.

Baxley v. Baldwin · filed 2006-05-18(e)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). Although that statute explicitly applies only to affidavits offered to support or oppose summary judgment motions, our Supreme Court has held that the same requirements apply to affidavits offered in connection with a motion to dismiss.

The materials listed in subsection (c) are not the exclusive means of presenting evidence on summary judgment, and a court may consider any material admissible or usable at trial.

Dalton v. City of Marietta · filed 2006-06-12(c)

In this regard, it is well settled that the trial court on summary judgment need not limit its inquiry to “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits” as set out in OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

The record materials listed in subsection (c) are not the exclusive means of presenting summary-judgment evidence; a court may consider any material admissible or usable at trial.

Hayes v. Sns Partnership, Lp · filed 2014-03-13(c)

Those forms of evidence are not the exclusive means of presenting evidence on a motion for summary judgment. The trial court may consider ... any material which would be admissible or usable at trial.

A court may consider a certified copy of deposition testimony on summary judgment even when the original deposition was not filed and the witness did not sign the transcript.

Blake v. Kes, Inc. · filed 2014-11-18

Therefore, the mere fact that the deposition on file was a copy did not preclude its consideration in opposition to KES’s motion.

Subsection (e) excludes an unsworn statement and an affidavit from someone without firsthand knowledge as summary judgment evidence.

Brown v. Super Discount Markets, Inc. · filed 1996-09-27(e)

The tape-recorded statement is inadmissible because it is unsworn. The paralegal’s affidavit is inadmissible because the paralegal was not a witness to any statement allegedly made by the parties, Janice Brown or Kelly Roper.

When a summary judgment motion is supported by an affidavit, the opposing party must present competent evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact.

Bozeman v. CACV of Colorado, LLC · filed 2006-11-02(e)

Therefore, because Bozeman failed to create an issue of material fact by confronting CACV’s prima facie evidence with competent evidence of her own, we affirm.

Section 9-11-56(c) requires courts to consider admissions along with the pleadings and other record evidence when deciding summary judgment motions.

Trustgard Insurance Company v. Herndon · filed 2016-07-14(c)

In this case, therefore, Herndon’s guilty plea was admissible prima facie evidence that he committed a criminal act. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (requiring that admissions be considered, along with other pleadings and evidence of record, in addressing motions for summary judgment).

When a court considers matters outside the pleadings on a dismissal motion, section 9-11-56 converts it to summary judgment and requires notice plus at least 30 days for the opposing party to submit evidence.

Davis v. PHOEBE PUTNEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2006-07-13

When matters outside the pleadings are considered by the trial court on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56, and the trial court has the burden of informing the party opposing the motion that the court will consider matters outside the pleadings and that, if the opposing party so desires, the party has no less than 30 days to submit evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment.

When a trial court considers matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, the resulting order is treated as summary judgment and is directly appealable under subsection (h).

Johnson v. RLI Insurance Co. · filed 2010-11-22(h)

The trial court, by considering matters outside of the pleadings that were presented by the parties, in effect converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by dismissing the direct appeal filed by Appellants, as the trial court’s order should have been treated as an order granting summary judgment, thereby giving Appellants a right to a direct appeal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 (h).

When a court considers material outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, it converts the motion to summary judgment and must give the opposing party notice and at least 30 days to submit evidence, though that notice may be waived by acquiescence.

Muhammad v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2012-01-12(c)

When matters outside the pleadings are considered by the trial court on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56, and the trial court has the burden of informing the party opposing the motion that the ... court will consider matters outside the pleadings and that, if the opposing party so desires, the party has no less than 30 days to submit evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment. ... Even if the trial court does not give the required notice, however, “the party opposing the motion may waive the right to the 30-day notice by acquiescing in the movant’s submission of evidence in support of the motion to dismiss.”

Considering matters outside the pleadings converts a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, and parties who acquiesce in that treatment waive notice and an opportunity to respond.

Coweta County, Georgia v. Errica Cooper · filed 2012-10-16

Although the County initially filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, when the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings, the motion to dismiss was converted to one for summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56. ... Thus all the parties acquiesced in the treatment of the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, no party was prejudiced, and the right to receive notice from the court as to the nature of the motion and opportunity to respond was waived.

When a court considers material outside the pleadings, it converts a dismissal motion to summary judgment and must inform the opposing party and allow at least 30 days to submit evidence.

Islam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. · filed 2014-04-18(c)

Although a trial court has the option to consider evidence attached to a motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof, when it does so it converts the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, governed by OCGA § 9-11-56.

Considering evidence attached to a motion to dismiss converts it into a summary-judgment motion governed by § 9-11-56 and requires notice and at least 30 days for the plaintiff to submit responsive evidence.

Eddie Weathers v. Dieniahmar Music, LLC · filed 2016-07-07

Although a trial court has the option to consider evidence attached to a motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof, when [the court] does so it converts the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, governed by OCGA § 9-11-56. In accordance with this procedure, the trial court has the burden of informing a plaintiff that it will be considering exhibits attached to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and that the plaintiff would have no less than 30 days within which to submit his own evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment.

Considering evidence attached to a dismissal motion converts it to summary judgment and requires notice plus at least 30 days for the plaintiff to submit responsive evidence.

Campbell v. Cirrus Education, Inc. · filed 2020-06-23

although a trial court has the option to consider evidence attached to a motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof, when it does so it converts the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, governed by OCGA § 9-11-56. In accordance with this procedure, the trial court has the burden of informing a plaintiff that it will be considering exhibits attached to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and that the plaintiff would have no less than 30 days within which to submit his or her own evidence in response to the motion for summary judgment.

When a motion to dismiss is converted to summary judgment, section 9-11-56 requires 30 days' notice and an opportunity for a hearing and response unless those protections are waived.

DONALD R. MADDEN v. NEW ZION BAPTIST CHURCH OF ATLANTA, INCORPORATED · filed 2024-10-24(c)

[a]lthough the trial court may convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment . . . , where this is done there must be compliance with OCGA § 9-11-56 requiring 30 days notice and an opportunity for a hearing. A respondent to a motion to dismiss is entitled to notice of conversion of the motion into one for summary judgment and to thirty days to respond to the motion for summary judgment unless such notice and opportunity are waived.

Section 9-11-56 requires a summary-judgment motion to be served at least 30 days before the hearing.

IYER v. PRISM HSH PROPERTIES, LLC · filed 2024-11-15(c)

Summary judgment is governed by OCGA § 9-11-56, which requires that various procedures be followed, including that a summary judgment motion be served thirty days before the trial court hears the motion.

Subsection (g) allows sanctions for affidavits presented in bad faith or solely for delay, but does not authorize striking or disregarding those affidavits; available sanctions include expenses or contempt.

Whitley v. Piedmont Hospital, Inc. · filed 2007-03-29(g)

Although we recognize that OCGA § 9-11-56 (g) allows a trial court to impose sanctions when it should “appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant ... to this Code section are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay,” the sanctions provided for in this Code section do not authorize the trial court to strike or disregard the affidavits presented by such a party as a sanction. Instead, the statute authorizes the trial court to impose other sanctions against an offending party, such as payment of expenses or adjudication of contempt.

Subsection (c) allows an adverse party to serve an opposing affidavit before the hearing day; mailing it one day before the hearing is timely because service by mail is complete upon mailing.

Kirkland v. Kirkland · filed 2007-04-17(c)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) provides that a party adverse to a motion for summary judgment may serve an opposing affidavit “prior to the day of hearing.” ... As service by mail is complete upon mailing, OCGA § 9-11-5 (b), the affidavit was not untimely.

Subsection (c) requires a trial court to consider an opposing affidavit served at any time before the summary-judgment hearing, notwithstanding a conflicting court rule.

Woods v. Hall · filed 2012-03-22(c)

However, in doing so, the trial court erred. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) provides that a party adverse to a motion for summary judgment may serve an opposing affidavit “prior to the day of hearing.” ... Indeed, the statute “requires the trial court to consider opposing affidavits filed ... at anytime prior to the hearing.” ... And while Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.2 appears to contradict OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), “[t]he statute controls the rule, and the trial court should have considered [Woods’s] affidavit[ ].”

Subsection (c) permits a party opposing summary judgment to serve affidavits at any time before the day of the hearing, even if service occurs only one day before.

Sjn Properties, LLC. v. Fulton County Board of Assessors · filed 2015-03-27(c)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) authorizes a party against whom a summary judgment motion has been filed to serve affidavits in opposition to the motion at any time “prior to the day of hearing.”

Subsection (a) allows a plaintiff to move for summary judgment after 30 days from commencement of the action, with or without supporting affidavits, on all or part of the claim.

Keane v. Annice Heygood Trevitt Support Trust · filed 2007-04-19(a)

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (a), a plaintiff “seeking to recover upon a claim . . . may, at any time after the expiration of 30 days from the commencement of the action . . . move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.”