Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

Section 9-11-56 requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment under facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

C & H DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. Franklin County · filed 2008-11-24(c)

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 [a] light most ... favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Section 9-11-56 requires the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment under facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Meadows v. Houston County · filed 2008-11-25(c)

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.

Section 9-11-56 requires the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment under facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Kilroy v. ALPHARETTA FITNESS, INC. · filed 2008-12-01(c)

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

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

DeSarno v. Jam Golf Management, LLC · filed 2008-12-03(c)

Summary judgment is only proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Cleveland Motor Cars, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2008-12-04(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) makes summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Deljoo v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2008-12-11(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Tims v. Hasselberger · filed 2009-04-24(c)

A trial court properly grants summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Serchion v. Capstone Partners, Inc. · filed 2009-05-04(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Hicks v. Heard · filed 2009-05-05(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Lee v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc. · filed 2009-05-05(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 9-11-56 requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment under facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Riding v. Ellis · filed 2009-05-08(c)

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

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

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2009-05-12(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Abdul-Malik v. AirTran Airways, Inc. · filed 2009-05-14(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Vulcan Construction Materials, LP v. Franklin Builders Properties, Inc. · filed 2009-05-26(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Snipes · filed 2009-05-29(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Keyingham Investments, LLC v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. · filed 2009-06-01(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

HASH PROPERTIES, LLC v. Conway · filed 2009-06-05(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. v. City of Atlanta · filed 2009-06-09(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) makes summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Horner v. Robinson · filed 2009-06-12(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Yim v. J'S FASHION ACCESSORIES, INC. · filed 2009-06-16(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

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

McGregor v. Columbia National Insurance Co. · filed 2009-06-23(c)

A trial court properly grants summary judgment where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 9-11-56 requires judgment for a party when no genuine issue of material fact exists and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. iFreedom Direct Corp. · filed 2011-10-27

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact and Hartford is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, OCGA § 9-11-56, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to iFreedom and in denying summary judgment to Hartford on the bond claim.

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

Bevington v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC · filed 2013-02-13(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 9-11-56 precludes summary judgment when disputed factual questions remain.

Weeks v. Rowell · filed 2008-02-05

On these facts, whether the $45,000 sales price in the sales contract was adequate in relation to the fair market value of the property, and whether enforcement of the contract was equitable, are disputed questions of fact. ... Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 was inappropriate.

Summary judgment must be denied when genuine issues of material fact remain.

Brown v. Harwell · filed 1973-06-27

Giving plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences from the record, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a contract between these parties, and therefore the grant of summary judgment was error.

A summary-judgment motion against a complaint, counterclaim, third-party claim, or cross-claim must be denied if the record presents a material factual issue.

O'Pry v. Goodman · filed 1974-06-20(b)

The criterion for testing the complaint, the counterclaims, the third-party claim, and the "cross claim” against a motion for summary judgment is the same: If there is an issue of material fact, based on the findings, depositions and affidavits of record, then the motion should be denied.

Summary judgment is improper when the opposing affidavit creates genuine issues of material fact supporting the defenses and counterclaim.

Taylor v. B. & W. Electric Supply Co. · filed 1975-04-24

A review of the complex facts1 involved in this case indicates the counter-affidavit filed by the subcontractor created genuine issues of material fact in support of its defenses and counterclaim. Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed.

Section 56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Mattison v. Jackson-Atlantic, Inc. · filed 1973-06-22(c)

The trial judge properly granted the defendant ice plant’s motion for summary judgment, because there was no "genuine issue as *280to any material fact.” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238).

Section 56 does not permit summary judgment when the movant’s evidence fails to resolve factual disputes raised by the opposing party’s answer.

Floyd v. DeVille · filed 1978-03-07

It was error to grant the motion for summary judgment. The appellant contended in her answer that the appellee’s claim was for past services rendered to her husband and that she was not indebted to the appellee. The record contains nothing to controvert this defense, nor does it contain any evidence in support of the amount claimed. The letter from the appellant’s new attorney purporting to grant the appellee a lien does not mention the appellant’s name and in and of itself cannot resolve the factual disputes raised by the appellant’s answer. See generally Code Ann. § 81A-156; Shadix v. Dowdney, 117 Ga. App. 720 (162 SE2d 245) (1968); Lansky v. Goldstein, 136 Ga. App. 607 (222 SE2d 62) (1975).

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

Bennett v. Shipman · filed 1980-02-27(c)

For plaintiff/appellee to obtain a partial summary judgment, he must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is proper when admissible evidence presents no defense and leaves no genuine issue of material fact.

Motz v. National Bank · filed 1981-01-06

Parol evidence not being admissible to vary or alter the terms of the document, no defense is presented and there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Code Ann. § 81A-156.

A factual dispute does not defeat summary judgment unless it concerns a material issue, and unrebutted evidence piercing every material allegation warrants judgment.

Ridge v. Espinoza · filed 1981-11-25

Although there was clearly a question of fact on that issue, the trial court correctly noted that that issue was not material and would not prevent summary judgment. The only allegation of negligence asserted by appellants was that Dr. Espinoza had placed a sponge in Mrs. Ridge’s abdomen and failed to remove it. Since appellees pierced appellants’ pleadings on all material issues and appellants were unable to controvert appellees’ evidence, it follows that summary judgment for appellees was properly granted.

A motion for summary judgment must be denied when the record clearly shows genuine issues of material fact.

Neely v. Richmond County · filed 1982-01-11

With regard to the denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment on the main action, the record before us clearly demonstrates that genuine issues of material fact remain. It was not error to deny appellant summary judgment as to appellee’s action under Code Ann. § 81A-156.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the movant's liability.

Peluso v. Central of Georgia Railroad · filed 1983-01-04

Since no genuine issue of material fact exists as to appellee’s liability to appellant in this action, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (OCGA § 9-11-56).

The movant bears the initial burden to eliminate every material issue and establish entitlement to judgment before the burden of producing evidence shifts to the opponent.

Mintz v. Frazier · filed 1981-11-12

On summary judgment the burden is on the moving party to produce evidence which conclusively eliminates all material issues in the case and demonstrates that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Code Ann. § 81A-156. That party must make a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law before the burden of producing evidence shifts to the opposing party.

Section 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when the parties’ affidavits conflict on a material factual issue.

Durham v. Marchman · filed 1980-11-05(c)

The conflicting affidavits present material issues of fact for determination at trial. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c). The trial court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Section 56(c) requires an unjust-enrichment claim to be reserved for a jury when the parties’ conduct presents a material factual issue.

Regional Pacesetters, Inc. v. Halpern Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1983-01-14(c)

the issue whether Halpern, by its conduct (as summarized in the facts preceding Division 1), induced plaintiff to expend sums of money which unjustly inured to Halpern’s benefit is indeed a question of material fact. Therefore, the trial court correctly reserved the issue for determination by jury. See Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; 1975, pp. 757, 759) (now OCGA § 9-11-56, effective November 1, 1982).

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment when no genuine material factual issue remains for a jury.

Proctor Square, Ltd. v. Proctor Square Apartments · filed 1993-11-19(c)

No genuine issue of material fact remains for a jury, so the trial court’s judgment is correct. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (e) precludes summary judgment for a claimant when genuine issues of material fact remain about entitlement to judgment.

Bundrage v. STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 1993-12-06(e)

Although we find that summary judgment was erroneously granted Standard Guaranty, we also find that genuine issues of material fact remain on Bundrage’s entitlement to summary judgment on his claims. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Conflicting record evidence on a material contract term precludes summary judgment under subsection (c).

Schulman v. MIS Resources International · filed 1994-03-03(c)

Construing the evidence of record, including the employment offer and professional services agreement together with the affidavit of Edwards and the personnel manual, we find that a conflict exists.

Opposing affidavits that conflict on a material issue create a factual question requiring denial of summary judgment.

Atlanta Indoor Advertising Concepts, Inc. v. World Class Fitness, Inc. · filed 1994-05-25(c)

We find that the opposing affidavits create a question of fact as to whether plaintiff performed its obligations under the contract. Therefore, the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Disputed questions of contractual intent and witness credibility must be resolved by a jury rather than on summary judgment.

Fox v. Washburn · filed 1994-11-14(c)

Fox’s allegation, together with the actual conduct of both parties over a period of eight years, presents questions as to the intent of the parties in entering into the agreement and Fox’s credibility. These questions can only be resolved by submitting the case to a jury.

Summary judgment must be reversed when genuine material factual issues remain on elements of an abusive-litigation claim.

Kirsch v. Jones · filed 1995-10-24

Because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the defendants pursued the third-party complaint with malice and without substantial justification, the tried court erred in granting summary judgment on the abusive litigation claim. See OCGA § 9-11-56.

Summary judgment is proper when the record presents no genuine factual issue for a jury to decide.

Amerson v. Kelly · filed 1995-11-16

For the reasons discussed above, we find that there are no genuine issues of fact for a jury to consider. Accordingly, the trial court’s granting of summary judgment to defendant was proper.

Subsection (c) requires reversal when genuine material factual issues remain unresolved.

Riviera Finance v. McBride · filed 1996-04-18(c)

Because genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved, summary judgment must be reversed.

Summary judgment is improper when evidence creates a material factual issue about the movant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Howell v. Styles · filed 1996-06-20

This evidence creates a material issue of fact as to whether Styles is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Styles.

Section 9-11-56 precludes summary judgment when material factual disputes remain under the evidence viewed most favorably to the nonmovant.

Popovich v. Bekaert Corp. · filed 1996-08-02

Material issues of disputed fact remain which preclude summary judgment.

Factual discrepancies do not preclude summary judgment unless they create a material factual issue.

Hornbuckle Wholesale Florist of MacOn, Inc. v. Castellaw · filed 1996-10-15

Likewise, any discrepancies between the testimony of Crawford and Castellaw do not preclude summary judgment in this case since these alleged discrepancies do not create “material” issues of fact. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Subsection (c) entitles a movant to summary judgment after showing the absence of any genuine material factual issue.

Hembree v. Johnson · filed 1997-02-14(c)

Having shown the absencé of any genuine issue of material fact, Johnson was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A factual dispute does not prevent summary judgment when the disputed fact is immaterial under the governing substantive law.

Bontwell v. Department of Corrections · filed 1997-05-22

It follows that the trial court did not err in also granting summary judgment to Terrell County despite fact questions surrounding the possibility of liability insurance. Such a fact question is not relevant or material to a determination of the county’s sovereign immunity under existing law.

Summary judgment is unavailable when material factual issues remain; the movant must establish no genuine issue and entitlement as a matter of law on facts viewed favorably to the nonmovant.

Brannen/Goddard Co. v. Collin Equities, Inc. · filed 1997-07-15(c)

These circumstances raise genuine issues of material fact as to BG’s alleged damages. To prevail at summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) precludes summary judgment when a material factual issue remains about whether legally required zoning conditions were considered in a tax assessment.

Brian Realty Corp. v. DeKalb County · filed 1997-11-05(c)

Accordingly, an issue of fact remains concerning whether the county’s tax assessor considered the existing zoning conditions in making the assessment, and as such, summary judgment to the county regarding Brian Realty’s claim under OCGA § 48-5-380 was not appropriate.

A genuine dispute over a material fact precludes summary judgment.

Smith v. Linkwell Industries, Inc. · filed 1998-05-04(c)

In his sole enumeration of error, Smith contends that the existence of genuine issues of material fact about the existence of and applicability of the limited warranty precluded summary judgment. We agree.

Section 9-11-56 permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Stephens v. Kroger Co. · filed 1999-04-30

The trial court granted summary judgment to Kroger, and the Stephenses appeal, contending that issues of fact exist for jury resolution. Under ... and its progeny, and the well-settled law that summary judgment is proper only in the absence of genuine issues of material fact, OCGA § 9-11-56, we agree with the Stephenses.

A movant cannot prevail on summary judgment when the pleadings, discovery responses, admissions, and affidavits establish a genuine issue of material fact.

Murray v. Department of Transportation · filed 1999-10-06(c)

If the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions, together with affidavits, establish a genuine issue of material fact, then the DOT cannot prevail in its motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment cannot rest on a contract when the parties’ intent regarding that contract presents a genuine issue of material fact.

Vasche v. John Wieland Homes, Inc. · filed 2000-03-02(c)

In this situation, summary judgment cannot be based on the release, because the intent presents a genuine issue of material fact for determination by a jury.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Nelson & Hill, P.A. v. Wood · filed 2000-07-12(c)

We also affirm the judgment on Wood’s counterclaim because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the propriety of ... handling of the proceeds of the federal litigation.

Subsection (c) bars summary judgment when a genuine dispute of material fact remains under evidence viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Sheridan v. DataNational, Inc. · filed 2002-10-15(c)

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. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 9-11-56 requires the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment under facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Anderson v. Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games, Inc. · filed 2003-06-12(c)

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.

Section 9-11-56 does not permit summary judgment when a defense raises material factual issues for jury resolution.

Burnham v. Cooney · filed 2004-01-20

Consequently, Cooney was not entitled to summary judgment.

Subsection (c) requires the absence of a genuine material-fact issue, not every factual issue, and permits judgment when the evidence allows a jury to draw only one reasonable conclusion.

Heretyk v. P. M. A. Cemeteries, Inc. · filed 2005-03-09(c)

[S]ummary judgment law does not require the movant to show that no issue of fact remains but only that no genuine issue of material fact remains; and while there may be some shadowy semblance of an issue, the case may nevertheless be decided as a matter of law where, as in this case, the evidence shows clearly and palpably that the jury could reasonably draw but one conclusion.

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

Hurst v. Evans · filed 2007-03-19(c)

Summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment only when the nonmovant fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact after the evidence is construed in that party's favor.

Smith v. Ellis · filed 2012-09-10(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when the non-moving party fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact, even when construing the evidence in that party’s favor.

Subsection (c) entitles a party to summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ansley v. Raczka-Long · filed 2013-06-03(c)

A party is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsections (c) and (e) preclude summary judgment when record evidence creates genuine issues of fact.

On Line, Inc. v. Wrightsboro Walk, LLC · filed 2015-07-08(c), (e)

Again, we agree with On Line that issues of fact exist as to whether Wrightsboro violated paragraph 9.17 of the Agreement thereby allowing for termination outside the Inspection Period. ... See also OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) & (e). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Wrightsboro on these issues.

Subsection (c) precludes summary judgment when conflicting testimony creates factual issues for jury resolution.

Ellis v. Hartford Run Apartments, L. L. C. · filed 2015-11-23(c)

But the plaintiffs testified otherwise. As detailed above, they testified that they repeatedly notified the defendants about the problems with the apartment, but in spite of this notice, the defendants never made the apartment fit for habitation. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have presented evidence creating issues of fact for jury resolution.

Subsection (c) precludes summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain.

McDonald v. Silver Hill Homes, LLC. · filed 2017-10-18(c)

Likewise, in the instant case, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Silver Hill on McDonald’s claim of punitive damages where there were genuine issues of material facts as to his claims of trespass and nuisance. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence shows 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”).

Summary judgment is unavailable when material factual questions remain for a jury to decide.

TACTICAL SECURITY GROUP, LLC v. CYNTHIA WELCH · filed 2024-05-20

We now reconsider the appeals with the benefit of our Supreme Court’s review, and we conclude that the trial court properly denied both motions for summary judgment because there remain issues of fact that must be decided by a jury.

A court cannot grant summary judgment for lack of evidence when the record, viewed for the nonmovant, contains evidence creating genuine issues of material fact.

The ESTATE OF ALVA PATTERSON BUTLER, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR TRACI CUNNINGHAM v. PATTERSON · filed 2024-09-23(c)

When considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Cunningham, the trial court erred by finding there was no evidence of undue influence and thus granting summary judgment to the Pattersons on all counts. Because genuine issues of material fact relevant to the issue of undue influence exist, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

Summary judgment is improper when a material issue is genuinely disputed, even though some evidence supports the movant's position.

Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-01-30(c)

Although there is certainly some evidence supporting such a proposition, by no means was the evidence undisputed. Summary judgment on this issue was in error.

A court may grant summary judgment only when no disputed issue of material fact remains.

Hall County Board of Tax Assessors v. Oliver Family Investments, Lp · filed 2025-03-12(c)

Only if no disputed issue of material facts remain is a court authorized to grant summary judgment.

Summary judgment is unwarranted when evidence that a visitor was the guest of a paying motel customer creates a genuine factual issue over whether the visitor was an invitee.

Radheshvar, LLC v. Kenneth A. Perez Larios · filed 2026-02-10(c)

Rather, the evidence that Perez Larios was visiting a paying motel guest when he was attacked is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was an invitee.

Section 9-11-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when material factual questions remain about a claim.

Crawford v. Johnson · filed 1997-07-11(c)

“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. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).” ... Questions of fact remain as to (1) whether Crawford may seek contribution or indemnity for any portion of Presbyterian’s award, and (2) if so, what portion of that award is subject to a claim for contribution or indemnity. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting Johnson summary judgment on Crawford’s overall claim for contribution and indemnity.

Section 9-11-56 does not permit partial summary judgment when a material factual question remains about the issue presented.

OLIVER Et Al. v. McDADE Et Al. · filed 2014-07-31(c)

At the very least there is a question of fact on this issue; therefore partial summary judgment is not appropriate at this time.

Summary judgment must be denied when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents a genuine issue of material fact.

BEVERLY SPILLERS AS ADMINSTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HOLLEY HERRING v. ROBERT EARL BRINSON · filed 2021-11-08(c)

Murphy’s affidavit, which the trial court was permitted to consider (as discussed above), creates a genuine issue of material fact about whether Bonnie Brinson actually signed the September 2000 change-of-beneficiary form. And the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Brinson estate as the nonmovant, creates a genuine issue of material fact about whether Bonnie Brinson was the person who requested a change of beneficiary through the insurance company’s online portal in October 2014. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the Herring estate’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 9-11-56 bars summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain for the jury.

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Mobil Chemical Co. · filed 1984-11-07

We further agree with the trial court that summary judgment is not proper in regard to the allegations of negligence because there exist genuine issues of material fact. OCGA § 9-11-56. Questions remain for the jury as to what inspections and repairs were made by Mobil and whether or not a reasonable inspection either by Mobil or the railroad would have revealed the defect. It follows that if the railroad can establish to the satisfaction of the jury that it was compelled to pay damages for which it was liable contractually or as a matter of law under OCGA § 46-8-292 because of negligence imputed to it as the result of any negligence committed by Mobil, it can seek to recover through contribution or indemnity from Mobil. “Where a tortious act does not involve moral turpitude, contribution among several trespassers may be enforced just as if an action had been brought against them jointly. Without the necessity of being charged by action or judgment, the right of a joint trespasser to contribution from another or others shall continue unabated and shall not be lost or prejudiced by compromise and settlement of a claim or claims for injury to person or property. . . .” OCGA § 51-12-32 (a). This statute expressly permitted the railroad to settle the claims against it without prejudicing its substantive right to seek indemnity from Mobil in the present suit.

Summary judgment is proper when no question of fact exists about a claimed lien because the claimant failed to establish and assert it under the lien statutes.

Jarrell v. Collins · filed 1985-10-08

Because any lien appellant may have under OCGA § 44-14-340 had not arisen and been asserted under OCGA § 44-14-550, no question of fact existed as to any such lien and the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to the Bank.

Summary judgment is improper when conflicting expert testimony and other evidence raise a fact issue on a medical malpractice claim.

Aleman v. Sugarloaf Dialysis, LLC · filed 2011-11-16

Because Dr. Chou’s testimony combined with the other evidence described above raises an issue of fact regarding Aleman’s malpractice claim against the defendants, we reverse the decision of the lower court granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Section 9-11-56 does not permit summary judgment on the amount of damages when discrepancies in the evidence create a material factual issue over the amount owed.

Mashburn Construction, L.P. v. CharterBank · filed 2017-03-09

Because the discrepancies are material to the amount of unpaid principal (as foreclosure proceeds were applied to interest first), interest, and contractual attorney fees (which are calculated as a percentage of the principal and interest) owed by Appellants, we conclude that material issues of fact exist as to the amount of damages.

Section 9-11-56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Infinity Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Havenbrook Homes, LLC · filed 2020-09-10(c)

“Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”

Disputes over irrelevant or merely de minimis details do not constitute genuine issues of material fact that bar summary judgment.

James v. Ford Motor Credit Corp. · filed 1983-05-04(c)

Not every detail of sundry disputed factual matters was conclusively resolved in the pleadings or through discovery procedures. ... This being so, the evidence clearly indicates that there remain in the case no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude an award of summary judgment.

A factual dispute does not preclude summary judgment unless the disputed fact is material under the governing substantive law.

Chelena v. GEORGIA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION · filed 1986-10-22

In this case there is a genuine issue of fact whether Georgia Federal had knowledge of the court order requiring court permission before encroaching upon the corpus of the trust. But it is not a material fact because even if Georgia Federal had such knowledge, it was permitted by the statute to pay out the funds on the order of Mrs. Chelena under the presumption she was acting in compliance with her duties as a fiduciary. Summary judgment was properly granted. OCGA § 9-11-56.

A dispute about an immaterial fact does not preclude summary judgment.

My Fair Lady of Georgia, Inc. v. Harris · filed 1987-11-30(c)

Conversely, any dispute as to any immaterial fact will not preclude the grant of summary judgment.

The existence of a factual dispute does not necessarily preclude summary judgment.

Baldwin County Hospital Authority v. Martinez · filed 1992-06-22

The existence of a dispute of fact under such circumstances will not necessarily preclude summary judgment.

Even a genuine factual dispute does not prevent summary judgment when the disputed fact is immaterial to the governing legal analysis.

Deen v. Stevens · filed 2010-07-23(c)

However, even genuine issues of fact will not prevent the entry of summary judgment if the disputed facts are not “material” to the legal issues in the case. ... A plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment by pointing to contradictory evidence in the record on an issue that makes no difference to the legal analysis.

A factual dispute does not defeat summary judgment unless it is material to the legal entitlement to judgment.

Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc. v. MacOn Health Center, Inc. · filed 2018-05-24(c)

Although we agree with the trial court that this evidence creates an issue of fact regarding the Hospital’s knowledge of the true corporate status of Club and Center, we disagree that this conflicting evidence creates an issue of material fact sufficient to defeat the grant of summary judgment to the Hospital.

Even genuine factual disputes do not preclude summary judgment when the disputed facts are immaterial to the controlling legal issues.

Naik v. Hyde Park Homes, Inc. · filed 2024-02-29(c)

“[E]ven genuine issues of fact will not prevent the entry of summary judgment if the disputed facts are not material to the legal issues in the case.”

Issues ordinarily reserved for a jury may be resolved on summary judgment in a plain and palpable case satisfying the statutory criteria.

Bryan v. Buddy Patrick, Inc. · filed 1989-09-05

The exception which proves this! rule, however, is well established: in “plain and palpable” cases, when! the statutory criteria have been met, it is proper to dispose of sucbl issues by summary judgment.

Summary judgment complies with subsection (c) when the record presents a plain and indisputable case in which no material issue remains for a jury.

Collie v. Hutson · filed 1985-07-10(c)

In light of our holdings in Divisions 1 and 2, supra, we find that the judgment below is in compliance with the criteria for summary judgment set out in OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court awarding summary judgment to appellees.

A case requiring factual determinations may be resolved by summary judgment only when plain, palpable, and undisputed evidence conclusively entitles one party to judgment.

Banks v. Todd · filed 1987-10-15(c)

It is only “where the facts conclusively show by plain, palpable and undisputed evidence” that one or the other party is entitled to judgment that the case “properly may be resolved as a matter of law through the vehicle of summary judgment.”

Section 56 does not treat a shadowy semblance of an issue as a genuine material factual dispute.

Springer v. Gaffaglio · filed 1989-01-31

Suffice it to say that based on the posture of the record, there is at best some shadowy semblance of an issue regarding any asserted failure of consideration and tortious interference.

Summary judgment requires only the absence of a genuine material factual issue, and a shadowy semblance of an issue does not preclude judgment when a jury could reasonably reach only one conclusion.

Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co. · filed 1990-06-27(e)

“Summary judgment law does not require the movant to show that no issue of fact remains but only that no genuine issue of material fact remains; and ‘while there may be some “shadowy semblance of an issue” (cit.), the case may nevertheless be decided as a matter of law where the evidence shows clearly and palpably that the jury could reasonably draw but one conclusion.’ [Cits.]”

A plain, palpable, and indisputable case need not be submitted to a jury and may be resolved by summary judgment.

Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1991-05-10

“This is a ‘plain, palpable, and indisputable’ case not calling for resolution by a jury. [Cits.]”

A plain, palpable, and indisputable case does not require jury resolution and may be decided by summary judgment.

Moore v. SERVICE MERCHANDISE COMPANY · filed 1991-07-02

“This is a ‘plain, palpable, and indisputable’ case not calling for resolution by a jury.”

Premises-liability negligence and ordinary-care questions generally belong to the jury, and summary judgment is proper only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed.

LANDINGS ASS'N, INC. v. Williams · filed 2011-03-25

Where reasonable minds can differ as to the conclusion to be reached with regard to questions of whether an owner/occupier breached the duty of care to invitees and whether an invitee exercised reasonable care for personal safety, summary adjudication is not appropriate. ... “The trial court can conclude as a matter of law that the facts do or do not show negligence on the part of the defendant or the plaintiff only where the evidence is plain, palpable and undisputable.”

Assumption of risk may be resolved on summary judgment when the evidence clearly and palpably permits only one conclusion.

Soundara v. S.A.F.E. Management of Georgia, LLC · filed 2024-03-06(c)

Although issues of negligence, lack of care in avoiding the negligence of others, lack of care for one’s own safety, and assumption of the risk are ordinarily not susceptible to summary adjudication, where the evidence shows clearly and palpably that the jury could reasonably draw but one conclusion the issue of assumption of risk may be determined on summary judgment.

An issue ordinarily reserved for the jury may be resolved by summary judgment when the evidence and all reasonable inferences establish only one result.

ATLANTA AREA COUNCIL, INC. v. PATEL · filed 2025-02-13(c)

Although the question of whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the tort is generally one for the jury, “summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom show that the employee was not engaged in furtherance of the employer’s business, but was on a private enterprise of the employee’s own.”

Routine premises-liability issues ordinarily are not suitable for summary adjudication, and summary judgment is proper only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed.

Conner v. NORMAN SOSEBEE FUNERAL HOME · filed 2010-03-08(c)

the “routine” issues of premises liability, i.e., the negligence of the defendant and the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs lack of ordinary care for personal safety are generally not susceptible of summary adjudication, and that summary judgment is granted only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed.

Negligence, contributory negligence, and ordinary-care issues ordinarily belong to the jury and may be decided on summary judgment only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed.

Baker v. HARCON, INC. · filed 2010-03-30(c)

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and the lack of ordinary care for one’s own safety should ordinarily be reserved for the jury, the only exception being “where the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputable.”

Summary judgment is inappropriate when conflicting affidavits demonstrate a material factual issue.

City of Acworth v. John J. Harte Associates, Inc. · filed 1983-02-15(c)

The conflicting affidavits exemplify the existence of a material issue of fact, rendering the grant of summary judgment to appellee inappropriate. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (OCGA § 9-11-56 (c)).

Section 56 requires reversal when the record does not eliminate every genuine issue of material fact concerning the claim.

Bartley v. Augusta Country Club, Inc. · filed 1983-03-09

The trial court erred, however, in awarding the Club summary judgment. The record in its present state does not eliminate every genuine issue of material fact (Code Ann..§ 81A-156) (OCGA § 9-11-56) concerning the propriety of the Club’s action in suspending appellant in view of the provisions of the by-laws dealing with expulsion.

Summary judgment is proper when the opposing party fails to raise any material factual issue.

H. L. Moore Co. v. Eakes · filed 1983-09-19

Appellant having failed to raise any issue of material fact, the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Section 56 permits summary judgment when uncontradicted evidence eliminates every genuine issue of material fact.

Dozier v. Wallace · filed 1983-11-17

We agree that the record has eliminated any genuine issue of material fact (OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156)) regarding the impropriety of the purported sublease to Rice’s company.

Section 56 permits summary judgment when the evidence establishes the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

Coast Catamaran Corp. v. Mann · filed 1984-07-10

The evidence establishes without genuine issue as to any material fact (OCGA § 9-11-56) that appellee’s injuries were not the result of any actionably negligent or defective design of the Hobie Cat 16.

Section 56 requires denial of summary judgment when competent evidence leaves genuine material factual issues unresolved.

Bland v. Ussery · filed 1984-09-17

We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that genuine issues of material fact remain to be determined.

Section 56 permits judgment when undisputed party status resolves the asserted claim as a matter of law.

Hartley v. Shenandoah, Ltd. · filed 1984-04-23

Since it is undisputed that the defendants were not parties to the prior suit, it follows that the trial court did not err in granting their motion for summary judgment and in denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56.

Section 56(e) permits summary judgment when the nonmovant produces no evidence refuting the movant’s sworn denial of a material allegation.

Sparks v. Thurmond · filed 1984-05-31(e)

the record contains no evidence to refute his sworn denials that he ever made such a statement. See generally OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

When pleadings are pierced and no material factual issue remains, the court must grant summary judgment to the party entitled to judgment.

McGee v. Gillis · filed 1984-05-21(c)

Where the allegations of the pleadings are pierced and there is no issue of material fact so that a party is entitled to judgment, it is then incumbent upon the court to grant a motion for summary judgment.

Section 56(c) permits summary judgment when the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact concerning the claim.

Poss v. Moreland · filed 1985-01-09(c)

The record discloses an absence of any genuine issue as to any material fact concerning the federal law claim. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment and we must reverse the Court of Appeals’ opinion to the contrary.

Summary judgment must be denied when evidence is sufficient to raise factual questions material to the movant's asserted legal defense.

Tanner v. Brasher · filed 1985-02-27

This evidence is sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the state acquired the land by adverse possession. OCGA §§ 9-11-56, 44-5-161.

Section 56(c) bars summary judgment when evidence creates a genuine material factual issue.

Blackburn v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 1985-03-11(c)

Although the evidence indicates that appellant was given the opportunity to submit to an examination under oath several times prior to August 1983 and did not do so, appellant did supply medical evidence that he was not able to submit to such an examination before suit was filed. Thus we find a genuine issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment must be denied when a genuine material factual issue remains and the movant has not shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

J. M. Clayton Co. v. Martin · filed 1985-11-12(c)

Since a genuine issue of material fact remained and there was no showing that appellant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment was properly denied appellant. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) prohibits summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact remain.

Skinner v. Perkins · filed 1986-01-17(c)

There were genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not the testator had testamentary capacity. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment must be denied when evidence supports both sides of a material issue.

Fulghum v. Kelly · filed 1986-03-04

There was evidence that the Kellys believed the legal effect of the instrument was to create a covenant not to sue. There was evidence Moon held a similar belief. Even if contrary evidence existed, it was not error to deny summary judgment to the Fulghums. See OCGA § 9-11-56.

Summary judgment may resolve claims when the evidence leaves no genuine material factual issue.

Nicholson v. Harris · filed 1986-04-17

The evidence shows, beyond any genuine issue of material fact (OCGA § 9-11-56) that Harris operated Harris Photography Group as a partnership with another until the partnership was dissolved with Harris retaining all assets and assuming business debts including a $40,000 loan obligation.

Summary judgment must be entered when the record shows no genuine material factual issue and the movant is entitled to judgment, while an opponent to a supported motion must set forth specific facts showing a triable issue.

Payne v. Dixie Electric Co. · filed 1985-04-09(c), (e)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) provides that on motions for summary judgment by either party, “[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 . . .”

Section 56(c) permits a court only to determine whether a factual issue exists, not to resolve facts or reconcile conflicting evidence.

John D. Stephens, Inc. v. Gwinnett County · filed 1985-06-28(c)

“Summary judgment may be granted only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion, who is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all reasonable inferences. [Cit.]”

Section 56 bars partial summary judgment when a factual question remains about whether the movant’s conduct caused the claimed loss.

Presidential Financial Corp. v. Tele-Wire Supply Corp. · filed 1985-10-22

Therefore, because a question of fact exists whether the action taken by appellant pursuant to the agreement proximately caused appellee’s loss, the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment to appellee on Count V.

Section 56 bars summary judgment when conflicting deposition testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Buffington v. Leader National Insurance · filed 1986-05-22

A genuine issue of material fact remains as to appellee’s liability under the insurance contract and the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to appellant’s contract claim.

Section 56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when a material factual issue remains after consideration of the pleadings and evidence.

Watkins v. Watkins · filed 1986-06-10(c)

The test for grant or denial of summary judgment is whether there remains after consideration of the pleadings, depositions, answers to the interrogatories, admissions on files and affidavits any genuine issue of material fact. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment is proper when the record contains no evidence supporting the opponent's asserted factual position.

Clark v. McBride · filed 1986-10-07

The record discloses no evidence of an intention to dedicate only an easement. Summary judgment was proper. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Haralson v. Pope Chevrolet, Inc. · filed 1986-10-09

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Summary judgment is proper when the statutory criteria are satisfied and the record presents no genuine material factual issue.

Arre Industries, Inc. v. Aralmex, S.A. de C.V. · filed 1987-01-26

We find no genuine issue of material fact and conclude, on the basis of our review of the record, that the statutory criteria for the award of summary judgment were satisfied. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Section 56 requires entry of summary judgment when undisputed evidence establishes the movant’s entitlement as a matter of law.

Cline v. McLeod · filed 1986-09-16

Under Georgia law, then, we find no genuine issue of material fact as to whether AT&T discharged its duty to Cline and Harper in this respect. As a matter of law, AT&T was entitled to summary judgment on Count V. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Section 56(c) does not permit summary adjudication when a factual dispute remains over whether an oral contract was made.

Goldkist, Inc. v. Brownlee · filed 1987-03-20(c)

In this posture, of course, the question of whether an oral contract was made would not yield to summary adjudication, as apparently recognized by the trial court, which based its decision on the preliminary question of whether the Brownlee partnership was a “merchant.”

Section 56(c) requires summary judgment when an undisputed legal privilege eliminates liability as a matter of law.

Watkins v. Laser/Print-Atlanta, Inc. · filed 1987-06-02(c)

As it appears that all instances of libel alleged were privileged absolutely, Laser/Print was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment as to the libel count. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Opposing affidavits that directly conflict over whether the defendant contracted for or received the goods create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

King v. Amoco Oil Co. · filed 1987-05-11(e)

we agree with appellant that these opposing affidavits created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellant ever contracted for or received the goods or services for which appellee sought payment. Summary judgment on this issue was therefore improper.

Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Baker v. Baker · filed 1987-06-19(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (1982).

Conflicting legal contentions do not create a genuine factual issue when an unambiguous written contract and the parol-evidence rule establish entitlement to judgment.

Chase & Associates, Inc. v. G S & M Co. · filed 1987-10-20(c), (e)

We conclude, therefore, that despite conflicting contentions, there was no genuine issue of material fact raised in the court below and that that court erred in denying summary judgment to appellant. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c), (e).

Summary judgment must be denied when, after resolving reasonable doubts and construing evidence and inferences for the opponent, a genuine material factual issue remains.

Mitchell v. Rainey · filed 1988-06-13(c)

Applying the above test to the operative facts and law, we find that the trial judge erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment, as a genuine issue of material fact existed within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56(c) requires denial when the movant’s competent evidence does not eliminate a genuine material issue.

Morris-Bancroft Paper Co. v. Coleman · filed 1988-09-27(c)

Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence establishes the claim's deficiency as a matter of law without a genuine material factual issue.

Gunn v. Booker · filed 1989-07-13(c)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Steve on the Gunn’s negligent entrustment claim.

Section 56(c) bars judgment when a genuine dispute remains over a material fact bearing on liability.

Crews v. McQueen · filed 1989-07-14(c)

There was a genuine dispute over what action by whom resulted in the break, which was a material fact as related to the issue of the principal’s civil liability. He was therefore not entitled to summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56 permits judgment where undisputed evidence resolves the claim as a matter of law.

Connell v. Houser · filed 1988-11-04

It follows that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Houser on the breach of contract claim.

Section 56 permits judgment on a count when the undisputed conduct falls within the agent’s authorized duties.

Jet Air, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance · filed 1988-11-10

Summary judgment on that count was not error either.

Section 56 permits judgment when undisputed evidence eliminates the defendants’ liability.

Baughcum v. Cecil Key Paving, Inc. · filed 1989-01-24

Summary judgment to the defendants was proper.

Summary judgment must be denied when the opponent's evidence is sufficient to challenge the movant's account of a material event.

Fletcher v. Ford · filed 1988-12-05

This evidence, along with Mrs. Ford’s testimony that she twice contacted the pediatrician’s answering service and that an unidentified woman returned her call on behalf of Dr. Fletcher, was sufficient to challenge Dr. Fletcher’s testimony that he did not receive the Fords’ emergency call. The trial court did not err in denying Dr. Fletcher’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 56 bars summary judgment when evidence raises factual questions for a jury.

Clemons v. Piggly Wiggly, Inc. · filed 1989-10-26

The evidence in this case raises several questions of fact for the jury to decide.

Summary judgment must be denied when genuine material factual issues remain concerning whether circumstances justify piercing the corporate veil.

Hyzer v. Hickman · filed 1990-03-16

Genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the circumstances authorize the piercing of the corporate veil and disregard of the corporate entity so as to hold Hickman personally liable for the debts of the corporation.

Section 56(c) bars judgment when circumstantial and direct evidence conflict on a material fact.

STUCKEY DIAMONDS, INC. v. Jones · filed 1990-04-12(c)

Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Jones. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine material factual issue remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Doctors Building Partners v. Grimes Bridge Associates · filed 1991-02-13(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).

Section 56 permits judgment when reasonable minds cannot differ and no material factual issue remains.

Carroll v. Stauffer · filed 1991-06-28

According to the standards for granting summary judgment (see OCGA § 9-11-56), reasonable minds cannot differ in this case and there is no material issue of fact remaining.

Summary judgment is proper when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no genuine material factual issue remains.

Minor v. E. F. Hutton & Co. · filed 1991-07-08(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party shows he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine material factual issue exists concerning the opposing party's liability under the asserted claim.

Sims v. Foss · filed 1991-09-03

In any event, there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to counter claimants’ liability for business losses to the condemnation, and they were entitled to the summary judgment which the trial court awarded. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Summary judgment must be denied when factual questions remain after the evidence is viewed in favor of the nonmoving party.

Southern Land & Cattle Co. v. Simmons · filed 1992-02-10

Accordingly, questions of fact exist as to Simmons’ liability on this cause of action and, to the extent that Southern’s damages may not be limited by the provisions of OCGA § 51-12-51, a factual question may exist as to whether Simmons was a willful trespasser within the meaning of OCGA § 51-12-50. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Simmons.

On summary judgment, the court determines only whether a factual issue exists and does not resolve factual issues.

Mrozinski v. Pogue · filed 1992-09-11(c)

The court does not resolve issues of fact, but merely determines whether there is an issue of fact.

On summary judgment, a court may determine only whether disputed material facts exist, not resolve those disputes, including in an equitable proceeding.

City of Atlanta v. North by Northwest Civic Ass'n · filed 1992-11-16(c)

To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a trial court is not empowered to resolve disputed issues of material fact but merely to determine if such issues exist for resolution.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the opposing affidavits create no material factual dispute and the movant's evidence remains undisputed.

Scott v. Hamilton Dorsey Alston Co. · filed 1992-11-30(c)

This does not, however, create a material issue of fact which would require reversal. The compilation of premium amount due, contained in Hamrick’s affidavit, stands undisputed. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate.

Under subsection (c), summary judgment is proper only when the record shows that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Ogletree v. Upson County Hospital Authority · filed 1980-02-12(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions . . . together with the affidavits, if any, show that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law...” Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c). The evidence in the record before us provides a basis upon which liability and damages could be predicated.

Section 56(c) requires a defendant seeking summary judgment to show that none of the issues raised by the plaintiff entitles the plaintiff to a jury trial.

Hinson v. Woodard · filed 1980-10-02(c)

We cannot say that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact presented in this case. “In order to be entitled to summary judgment the defendants must show that none of the issues raised by the plaintiffs entitled the plaintiffs to a jury trial.” Bible v. Marra, 226 Ga. 154, 161 (173 SE2d 346) (1970). See also, Ellington v. Tolar Construction Co., 237 Ga. 235 (227 SE2d 336) (1976); Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.