Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-56

Summary judgment is proper when no evidence contradicts the movant's evidence that its conduct was in good faith and not malicious.

El-Amin v. Trust Co. Bank · filed 1984-04-06(c)

There being no evidence to contradict appellees’ evidence that their actions were in good faith and not malicious, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56 mandates summary judgment when the asserted facts cannot support recovery against the movant under any available legal theory.

Bekele v. Ryals · filed 1986-01-06

As the case is presently postured, however, we are persuaded that summary judgment for appellant Bekele was mandated as a matter of law, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion.

Section 56(c) requires reversal when the movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dixie Construction Products, Inc. v. Southeastern Council on Compensation Insurance · filed 1987-05-11(c)

As appellees were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in their favor must be reversed. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment is proper when the record does not raise a jury issue under subsection (e).

Davison's Auto Service Co. v. Security Insurance · filed 1988-05-20(e)

The evidence was not such as to raise a jury issue, and the trial court therefore properly granted summary judgment to appellee. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Section 56 permits judgment when the complete record and governing law satisfy its requirements.

Adams v. Atlanta Faith Memorial Church, Inc. · filed 1989-04-03

law indicate that the requirements for summary judgment were met in the instant case, and that there was no error below. OCGA § 9-11-56.

Even when no genuine material factual issue remains, summary judgment may be entered only against a party as to whom the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Harris v. Boyd · filed 1989-11-09(c)

Although we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues of material fact for trial, summary judgment is not proper unless the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Section 56 permits judgment when the movant is entitled as a matter of law after all benefits are afforded the opponent.

Miller v. Smith & Smith Land Surveyors, P.C. · filed 1990-02-12

Accordingly, even granting Miller all the rights and benefits she is entitled to receive as the respondent to a motion for summary judgment procedures (see generally OCGA § 9-11-56), Smith & Smith was entitled to summary judgment.

Subsection (c) directs summary judgment when no genuine material factual issue exists and a pure issue of law favors the movant.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Weathers · filed 1989-11-06(c)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) directs the award of summary judgment 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.” Since the issue in the instant case — whether punitive damages are included in the “all sums” language of OCGA § 33-7-11 — is one of law, and the court determined that the law favored the position of appellees rather than of appellant, it follows that appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and appellants were not.

Section 56 requires reversal when the legal ground for judgment does not entitle the movant to judgment.

Porter v. Food Giant, Inc. · filed 1991-02-13

Under the criteria of OCGA § 9-11-56, the trial court’s award of summary judgment on the basis of ERISA preemption was therefore error and the judgment in Case No. A90A2323 must be reversed.

Section 56 permits judgment when undisputed evidence supplies an independent legal ground defeating the claim.

Joel Properties, Inc. v. Reed · filed 1992-03-06

A second rationale also mandates summary judgment for Joel here.

An unrebutted affidavit establishing the agreement, breach, and right to recover can satisfy Section 9-11-56 and support summary judgment on a contract claim.

Jordan v. Lamberth, Bonapfel, Cifelli, Willson & Stokes, P.A. · filed 1992-11-05

Under the circumstances, this was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56, and the trial court did not err by granting the motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment must be entered when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the undisputed facts, viewed favorably to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Celtic Life Insurance v. Monroe · filed 1996-01-30(c)

As the facts in the record show that Celtic Life demonstrated that there is no genuine, issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Monroe, warranted judgment for Celtic Life as a matter of law ... , the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the case remanded with direction to enter summary judgment in favor of Celtic Life.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their defenses.

Wright v. Ashe · filed 1996-02-06(c)

Accordingly, it appears that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under both the doctrine of official immunity and intervening cause. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) requires summary judgment when no genuine material factual issue remains and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Van Alstine v. Merritt · filed 1996-09-12(c)

Because no genuine issue of material fact remains, Merritt was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A party that fails to state a claim for relief cannot show the entitlement to judgment required for summary judgment.

Lowe v. State · filed 1997-03-17

Since appellants failed to state a claim as to which relief can be granted, it necessarily follows that they have not shown the entitlement to judgment which would authorize the grant of summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56.

On cross-motions, subsection (c) requires judgment for the party entitled to it when the undisputed facts, viewed for the opponent, establish entitlement as a matter of law.

Atlanta Postal Credit Union v. International Indemnity Co. · filed 1997-10-22(c)

Because the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to International Indemnity, show that it had the duty to defend the Credit Union in the underlying action, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to International Indemnity and in denying the Credit Union’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment requires that the moving party be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Newcomer v. Newcomer · filed 2004-11-22(c)

Summary judgment requires that the moving party be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA§ 9-11-56 (c).

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

Bourff v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC · filed 2013-03-20(c)

Accordingly, because there was no genuine issue of material fact and Green Tree was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment on the counterclaim. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment cannot be granted when the movant has not established that the statute supplying its claimed entitlement to judgment applies to the case.

Mamoorkhan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-10(c)

we cannot say that Auto-Owners has demonstrated that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law under that statute.

Summary judgment must be denied when, after construing the evidence and all inferences against the movant, factual issues remain for the jury.

Bloodworth v. Smith · filed 1973-03-02

The foregoing evidence gives rise to issues of fact that are for the jury to resolve. It cannot be said that, construing the foregoing evidence (with all inferences therefrom) most strongly against the movant, the defendant is entitled to a judgment in his favor as a matter of law.

Section 56 does not permit a court deciding summary judgment to weigh competing evidence, which is the factfinder’s function.

Shield Insurance v. Poole · filed 1979-02-21

Although there is an abundance of evidence to indicate that Hill did not have such permission, it is not the function of the court to weigh evidence on motion for summary judgment. This is the function of the trier of fact. See generally Code Ann. § 81A-156; Watkins v. Nationwide &c. Ins. Co., 113 Ga. App. 801 (149 SE2d 749) (1966). It was accordingly error to grant the motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper when the opposing party fails to produce evidence raising a triable issue as to liability.

Burgett v. Thamer Construction, Inc. · filed 1983-01-28

Appellant has failed to produce evidence that would raise any triable issue as to appellees’ liability. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment.

Section 56(c) requires the record to be construed most favorably to the nonmovant and bars summary judgment when the movant’s evidence does not pierce the opposing pleadings.

Stroup v. Castellucis · filed 1982-07-15(c)

After a careful review of the record, and construing the evidence most favorably for appellant and against appellee as we must on summary judgment, we conclude that the evidence contained therein does not pierce appellant’s pleadings as to his counterclaim against appellee. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s counterclaim was also error. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c); Griffin v. Wittfeld, 143 Ga. App. 485 (2) (238 SE2d 589) (1977); Reid v. Reid, 246 Ga. 592 (2) (272 SE2d 685) (1980).

An opposing affidavit must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent, and summary judgment is precluded when that affidavit raises a genuine material factual issue.

Atlanta Professional Ass'n for Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, P. C. v. Allen · filed 1982-09-09

When the affidavit of appellant’s financial manager is viewed in the light most favorable to appellant — as it must be under the procedural posture of this case — there arise genuine issues of material fact as to whether the agreement between appellant and the deceased was an entire or severable contract.

Section 56(c) allows summary judgment only when no genuine material issue exists and requires the evidence to be construed against a movant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial.

Pugh v. Frank Jackson Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. · filed 1983-02-01(c)

OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156) allows summary judgment only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the evidence shows that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, “on motion for summary judgment by a party on whom the burden of proof does not lie on the trial of the case, all the evidence must be construed against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion ...”

On summary judgment sought by a party who does not bear the trial burden, all evidence must be construed against the movant and in favor of the opponent.

A-Larms, Inc. v. Alarms Device Manufacturing Co. · filed 1983-01-31(c)

In this case, the evidence must be construed against Ademco, since “the rule is well established that on motion for summary judgment by a party on whom the burden of proof does not lie on the trial of the case, all the evidence must be construed against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion ...”

The likelihood that a nonmovant will carry its trial burden and the credibility of evidence cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

Whirlpool Corp. v. Hurlbut · filed 1983-03-09

Matters relating to the likelihood or probability of a non-movant carrying his burden at trial or the credibility of the evidence have no place in the summary judgment procedure.

The probability that a party will carry its trial burden and the credibility of evidence cannot be decided through section 56 summary-judgment procedure.

Splish Splash Waterslides, Inc. v. Cherokee Insurance · filed 1983-07-15

Matters relating to the likelihood or probability of a non-movant [or a movant] carrying his burden at trial or the credibility of the evidence have no place in the summary judgment procedure. [Cits.]”

Under subsection (c), summary judgment may be granted only when no genuine material factual issue exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with the evidence construed in the opponent's favor.

Blount v. SECKINGER REALTY COMPANY · filed 1983-09-07(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) (Code Ann. § 81A-156). 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.

Undisputed facts and application of contract-construction rules support summary judgment when they establish that the claim falls outside an insurance policy's coverage.

Guest v. Horace Mann Insurance Company · filed 1983-10-11

Since the undisputed facts and application of the rules of contract construction show that the death of appellant’s benefactor was expressly without the coverage of the accidental death provisions, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Summary judgment eliminates a jury trial only when the opponent receives all reasonable doubts and favorable inferences and no genuine material factual issue remains.

Jones v. Barnes · filed 1984-04-12

The purpose of the Summary Judgment Act... is to eliminate the necessity for a trial by jury where, giving the opposite party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

In deciding whether a movant has met the summary-judgment burden, the opponent receives every favorable inference and reasonable doubt.

Buice v. White · filed 1984-11-16

In determining whether a movant meets the summary judgment burden, the respondent must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences and every reasonable doubt.

On summary judgment, the opponent receives all reasonable doubts and favorable inferences, and all evidence is construed against a movant who does not bear the trial burden.

Georgia International Life Insurance v. Huckabee · filed 1985-05-22

On a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 the party opposing the motion is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.

A court deciding summary judgment cannot try factual issues and asks only whether there are issues requiring trial.

Guillebeau v. Yeargin · filed 1985-06-11

On motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact but is only concerned with whether there are issues of fact to be tried.”

Section 56 requires the opposing party to receive the benefit of every reasonable doubt and favorable inference.

Reynolds v. Transport Insurance · filed 1986-03-12

The opposing party must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences.

On summary judgment, the evidence is viewed most favorably to the respondent, who receives the benefit of every doubt.

Mallard v. Jenkins · filed 1986-07-01

On motion for summary judgment the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the respondent, and the respondent is given the benefit of every doubt.

A summary-judgment movant must negate at least one essential element and establish that no genuine material factual issue remains, with the evidence construed against the movant.

Progressive Insurance v. Kelly · filed 1986-12-05(c)

“[T]he evidence must be construed most strongly against the movant, and the party opposing the motion is entitled to all inferences that may fairly and reasonably be drawn in support of his case. [Cit.] The moving party has the burden of negating at least one of the essential elements of the opponent’s case and of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact remain. [Cits.]”

Summary judgment is inappropriate when witness credibility controls resolution of a material factual issue.

Stephens v. Adkins · filed 1997-06-03(c)

Where credibility is the controlling question, summary judgment is not appropriate.

A movant must show no genuine material factual issue and that undisputed facts and reasonable inferences, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Rodgers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · filed 1997-09-12

In order 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 and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with doubts and inferences resolved for the opposing party.

Jimerson v. Republic Land & Investment Co. · filed 1998-09-17(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate where there exists 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). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion.

On summary judgment, evidence and reasonable inferences must be construed in the opposing party’s favor, but unreasonable inferences have no probative value.

Wender & Roberts, Inc. v. Wender · filed 1999-05-18(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the opposing party must be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court must construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion.

Subsection (c) mandates that all inferences be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party on summary judgment.

Quill v. Newberry · filed 1999-05-20(c)

we did not intend to negate the long standing, statutorily mandated principle that, upon motion for summary judgment, all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

In deciding whether the plaintiff met the post-piercing burden, all inferences, ambiguities, and doubts are resolved against the summary-judgment movant, and vague or contradictory testimony is construed for the nonmovant.

Clark v. Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. · filed 2000-02-28(c), (e)

all inferences, and all ambiguities, and all doubts, are resolved against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the grant of summary judgment. This is true even where the party opposing the motion would have the burden at trial. Furthermore, the respondent’s proof is treated with indulgence. Vague or contradictory testimony must be construed in favor of the non-movant.

A court may not draw a negative inference against the nonmovant when deciding summary judgment and must give the nonmovant favorable reasonable inferences.

Kaplan v. Pulte Home Corp. · filed 2000-07-21(e)

Any other inferences as to when the pressure washing occurred would be a negative inference against Kaplan, the respondent, which the trial court was not permitted to draw. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). ... The trial court erred in failing to give Kaplan such favorable inference.

Under subsection (c), courts review the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Worthy v. Beautiful Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2001-11-02(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). A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Subsection (c) requires courts to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor when deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.

Barge v. Melvin Carmichael Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2001-12-03(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. ... A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Subsection (c) allows summary judgment only if judgment is required as a matter of law after the facts and reasonable inferences are construed in the plaintiff’s favor.

Shree Annpurna, Inc. v. Udhwani · filed 2002-06-13(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate only if under the facts as so construed, judgment is required as a matter of law.

A court deciding summary judgment must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Patton v. St. Francis Hospital · filed 2003-02-20(c)

Further, although the trial court discussed the impact of certain presumptions arising from the Act, we find no indication in the trial court’s order that it failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Patton.

On review under subsection (c), evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

General Electric Co. v. North Point Ministries, Inc. · filed 2008-01-29(c)

The facts in this case are not in dispute. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and conclusions drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must on review of a grant of summary judgment, ... the record reflects that on May 18, 2005, Garrard Construction Interiors, LLC (“Garrard”), entered into a contract to provide improvements to a church facility in Alpharetta (the “project”).

Evidence on summary judgment must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party.

Jaraysi v. City of Marietta · filed 2008-09-18

On motion for summary judgment, however, the evidence is construed in favor of the non-moving party.

Circumstantial evidence can defeat summary judgment without conclusively excluding every competing theory when the alternatives are shown to be less probable, leaving sufficiency for the jury.

Patterson v. Kevon, LLC · filed 2018-08-20(c)

There is no requirement that other theories be conclusively "excluded" as proposed ... by Big Kev's and held by the trial court. In those circumstances, "the question as to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, and its consistency or inconsistency with alternative hypotheses, is a question for the jury."

On summary judgment, contested facts and every reasonable inference must be viewed for the nonmovant, and de novo appellate review corrects a trial court's failure to do so.

Gutierrez v. Hilti, Inc. · filed 2019-03-12(c)

Gutierrez and Perez argue, and we agree, that at times the trial court did not construe contested facts in this light in her order. The recitation of facts below reflects our de novo review of the evidence in this case, viewed most favorably and giving every reasonable inference to the nonmovants, Gutierrez and Perez.

Circumstantial evidence may survive summary judgment if it makes alternative theories less probable, without conclusively excluding them, but a merely possible inference has no probative value against positive uncontradicted evidence.

Mannion & Mannion, Inc. v. Mendez · filed 2020-05-04

Generally, in passing upon a motion for summary judgment, a finding of fact which may be inferred but is not demanded by circumstantial evidence has no probative value against positive and uncontradicted evidence that no such fact exists. . . . Circumstantial evidence . . . may be sufficient for a plaintiff’s claim to survive summary judgment, if other theories are shown to be less probable. There is no requirement that other theories be conclusively excluded.

When a court decides a discretionary equitable issue on summary judgment, subsection (c) still requires it to construe all facts and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant.

Fulton County v. Ward-Poag · filed 2020-10-05(c)

Because the superior court was deciding the judicial estoppel issue in the context of a motion for summary judgment, the court was required to follow the well-established principles governing such motions. A trial court can grant summary judgment to a moving party only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the undisputed evidence warrants judgment as a matter of law. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). In reviewing the evidence, a court must construe all facts and draw all inferences in favor of the non-movant.

Subsection (c) precludes summary judgment on disputed material facts and requires the record and all reasonable inferences to be construed in the nonmovant’s favor.

PATEL v. DUKE HOSPITALITY, LLC · filed 2022-06-28(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when there exists no disputed issue as to any material fact, and our standard of review requires us to construe all of the evidence and any inferences and conclusions arising therefrom in favor of Patel. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); JPMorgan Chase Bank, 355 Ga. App. at 558-559. The trial court erred ... to the extent that it construed the record in favor of Duke and Collum and otherwise granted summary judgment based upon material facts that are in dispute.

Positive, uncontradicted testimony cannot be reduced to a credibility issue by consistent circumstantial evidence that merely permits, rather than demands, a contrary inference.

BASSETT v. WINFIELD FARM, INC. · filed 2023-08-14(c)

“[A]n issue of credibility is not raised where there is no conflicting or contradictory evidence[,]” ... and Bassett has not refuted Addison and Morel’s affidavit and deposition testimony regarding the existence of this rule. ... In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, a finding of fact which may be inferred but is not demanded by circumstantial evidence has no ... probative value against positive and uncontradicted evidence that no such fact exists.

Evidence that conflicts with the movant’s factual claim creates a genuine issue of material fact when viewed in the nonmovant’s favor.

The WEST FIRM, P.C. v. CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ATLANTA, INC. · filed 2024-09-30(c)

Because the ledger of checks written to West does not include a $9,391 check written on December 16, 2021, it conflicts with the church’s claim that such a check was prepared and made available on that date.

When cross-motions for summary judgment present factual issues, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovants.

Humble v. Opendoor Property J.,llc · filed 2024-10-18(c)

However, when factual issues are presented on cross-motions for summary judgment, as they are here, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants.

At summary judgment, a court may not disregard the nonmovant's testimony and must construe that testimony in the nonmovant's favor.

Cook v. Smg Construction Services, LLC · filed 2024-10-29(c)

We cannot disregard Cook’s testimony that he did not accurately perceive the location of the unguarded balcony edge. Instead we must construe that testimony in Cook’s favor and find, for purposes of summary judgment, that he lacked actual, specific knowledge of the location of that edge.

A nonmovant's account cannot create a factual dispute when a video blatantly contradicts that account.

TYRIK BALL v. CSX INTERMODAL TERMINALS, INC. · filed 2025-10-27(c)

[W]here opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by a videotape of the incident, a court should not adopt that version of ... the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

Section 9-11-56(e) requires the trial court to draw all reasonable, favorable inferences for the respondent on summary judgment.

Smith v. Vencare, Inc. · filed 1999-06-23(e)

The trial court must draw all reasonable, favorable inferences in favor of the respondent on summary judgment, which was not done by the trial court.

When a party offers contradictory summary-judgment testimony without any explanation, the trial court may treat the party's unfavorable testimony as true.

Yates Paving & Grading Co. v. Waters · filed 1987-01-05

In the case sub judice, appellant’s statements were found to be contradictory by the trial court. Since the statements alleged three different dates on which the work was completed, and no explanation, reasonable or otherwise, was offered by appellant for these contradictions, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it took as true appellant’s unfavorable testimony that completion occurred by March 13, 1982.

Summary judgment requires the movant to show no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law, with all doubts, evidence, and favorable inferences resolved for the opponent.

Cook v. Arrington · filed 1987-06-04

“ ‘A summary judgment should not be rendered unless there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and unless the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. [OCGA § 9-11-56]. The burden is upon the movant to affirmatively show that there is no genuine issue and that he is entitled to a summary judgment. The party opposing the motion for a summary judgment is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts in determining whether a genuine issue exists. The evidence must be construed most favorably to the opposing party, and the trial. court must give him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. [Cits.]’ [Cit.]”

Summary judgment requires the movant to establish no genuine material factual issue and entitlement as a matter of law, with every favorable inference and reasonable doubt given to the opponent.

Young v. Wooldridge · filed 1988-06-03

“Upon a motion for summary judgment, the burden is upon the movant to establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56. In determining whether a movant meets the summary judgment burden, the respondent must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences and every reasonable doubt.

On summary judgment, the evidence and all favorable inferences must be construed in favor of the opposing party.

Rodriguez v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. · filed 1987-11-05

On summary judgment, under OCGA § 9-11-56, “ ‘[t]he evidence must be construed most favorably to the opposing party, and the trial court must give him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]”

The court must give the opponent all reasonable doubts and construe the evidence, inferences, and conclusions most favorably to that party.

Schwartz v. Rennie · filed 1988-01-26(c)

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the court should construe the evidence and all inferences and conclusions arising therefrom most favorably toward the party opposing the motion.

Summary judgment is improper when conflicting evidence requires a jury to sift and weigh the facts.

Bragg v. Missroon · filed 1988-04-07

In the instant case the evidence does not mandate a judgment as a matter of law; a scrupulous sifting and weighing of the evidence by a jury is required. The trial court properly denied summary judgment.

On summary judgment, the evidence and every reasonable inference must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party.

Gowen v. Cady · filed 1988-11-14

“On motion for summary judgment, the evidence, with all reasonable inferences therefrom, must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party: here, Mrs. [Cady]. OCGA § 9-11-56.”

Section 56(e) permits consideration of affidavit statements not genuinely contradicted by earlier statements.

Howell v. Carter · filed 1989-01-05(e)

The trial court properly included the statements made by appellees in their affidavits in the evidence considered on summary judgment. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (e).

Section 56(c) requires evidence and favorable inferences construed against the movant.

Atlas Casing Co. v. Joyner · filed 1989-09-06(c)

Both parties have moved for summary judgment and have agreed that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

On summary judgment, the nonmovant's evidence must be believed and all justifiable inferences drawn in that party's favor.

Barber v. Perdue · filed 1989-12-20

The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.

Section 56 permits judgment when unexplained contradictory testimony is construed against the nonmovant and no material issue remains.

Thomson v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · filed 1990-09-05

Accordingly, Thomson’s enumerations of error are without merit and the trial court did not err by granting Sears’ motion for summary judgment.

Unexplained contradictions between an affidavit and prior deposition testimony are eliminated before deciding whether a genuine material factual issue exists.

McCoy v. State Farm Insurance · filed 1991-05-08(c)

Therefore, the contradictory testimony rule applies to this case, and we must eliminate those unexplained contradictory portions of McCoy’s affidavit.

Section 56(c) gives opponents all favorable inferences and reasonable doubts when the movant bears the burden.

Daniel v. Safeway Insurance · filed 1991-05-31(c)

Further, the evidence must be construed in favor of the respondents to Safeway’s motion and they must be given the benefit of all inferences and reasonable doubts.

A trial court deciding summary judgment may determine only whether a genuine material factual issue exists and may not weigh evidence or decide issues traditionally reserved for the jury.

Haire v. City of MacOn · filed 1991-07-11

“ ‘The Summary Judgment Act does not authorize the trial court to sit as both judge and jury, weighing the evidence and deciding issues that are traditionally for the jury. (Cit.) The sole function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is, rather, to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact.

A court deciding summary judgment may determine whether disputed material facts exist but cannot resolve those disputes.

COLQUITT COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. Health Star, Inc. · filed 1992-06-25(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.

On summary judgment, the evidence and reasonable inferences are assumed in favor of the nonmoving party.

Landis v. Rockdale County · filed 1992-12-04

This being summary judgment, as to the facts we assume the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of appellant, the non-moving party.

The party opposing summary judgment receives the benefit of all reasonable doubts and favorable inferences, even when the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial.

King v. Crain-Daly Volkswagen, Inc. · filed 1993-02-15

On a motion for summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 the party opposing the motion is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence.

On summary judgment, a court may determine only whether disputed material facts remain and may not resolve those factual disputes.

Georgia Canoeing Ass'n v. Henry · filed 1993-04-19(c)

On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain. If, and only if, no disputed issue of material fact remains is the trial court authorized to grant summary judgment.

Under subsection (c), evidence and all reasonable inferences and doubts are construed in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.

Stapleton v. Colonial Insurance · filed 1993-07-06(c)

Viewing this exhibit in the light most favorable to Stapleton ... and giving her the benefit of all reasonable doubts, construction of the evidence, and all inferences and conclusions ... , we cannot reasonably infer from this exhibit that a FR4 concerning Stapleton was duly sent to the Georgia Department of Public Safety.

Summary-judgment evidence is viewed favorably to the respondent, who receives every doubt, while the movant must prove no genuine issue of material fact.

Centennial Life Insurance v. Smith · filed 1993-08-24

Furthermore, “the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the respondent, and the respondent is given the benefit of every doubt. The movant has the burden to prove the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact, and in so determining, the court will treat the respondent’s paper with considerable indulgence.”

On summary judgment, evidence and reasonable inferences—including credibility and weight questions—are viewed favorably to the nonmovant, and defendants must eliminate genuine factual issues on every essential claim element.

Brewer v. Rogers · filed 1993-12-02

On summary judgment, all evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom are viewed favorably to the non-movant. ... Defendants must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any essential element of plaintiff’s case.

Summary judgment must be denied when evidence and inferences viewed favorably to the nonmovant leave genuine material factual issues and the movant has not established entitlement as a matter of law.

Hampton v. Norred & Associates, Inc. · filed 1995-02-22

Construing the evidence in the current case and all inferences therefrom most favorably toward Hampton, we conclude Norred did not meet its burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the false imprisonment claim.

Subsection (c) permits summary judgment only when facts and reasonable inferences viewed most favorably to the nonmovant leave no issue for trial.

Service Merchandise, Inc. v. Jackson · filed 1996-06-27(c)

Under OCGA §§ 9-11-56 (c) and 9-11-50 (a), summary judgments and directed verdicts are appropriate only when the court, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts, in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, concludes that there are no issues to be tried.

A movant is not entitled to summary judgment when directly conflicting affidavit testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta · filed 1998-03-20(c)

To prevail on summary judgment on this ground, the city was required to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Conflicting evidence on whether conduct was reasonable presents a jury question and makes summary judgment inappropriate under subsection (c).

Association Services, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2001-05-16(c)

After hearing the evidence, a jury may very well conclude that the investigators’ conduct was reasonable and did not constitute an intrusion upon Pierce’s seclusion; however, because there is conflicting evidence, that determination is for a jury to make, and summary judgment is inappropriate. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A court may not decide affidavit credibility on summary judgment, and a factually complete, notarized affidavit can create a genuine issue of material fact.

Wheeler v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority · filed 2010-03-17(c)

Whether Wheeler’s affidavit was credible and whether the facts as Wheeler portrayed them are true or not is a jury question, and not an issue for the court to decide summarily.

A conflict between a nonparty expert's deposition and affidavit presents a credibility issue for the jury and cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

Naik v. Booker · filed 2010-03-30

Although the deposition testimony of Booker’s expert regarding whether Mrs. Robinson would have survived the surgery may conflict with his affidavit, this conflict is not an issue this court can resolve. ... “[C]ontradictions go solely to the expert’s credibility, and are to be assessed by the jury when weighing the expert’s testimony.”

A party-witness who gives contradictory summary-judgment testimony bears the burden of reasonably explaining it, and whether that burden is met is a legal question for the trial judge.

Rapp v. ESCANTE, INC. · filed 2010-05-28(c)

The burden rests upon the party giving the contradictory testimony to offer a reasonable explanation, and whether this has been done is an issue of law for the trial judge.

A nonmovant cannot avoid a properly supported summary-judgment motion merely by asking the jury to disbelieve uncontradicted testimony; concrete contradictory evidence is required.

Cowart v. Widener · filed 2010-07-12(c)

Thus, contrary to the dissent’s claims, Widener’s testimony cannot simply be disregarded because his version of events could be ... disbelieved, in the absence of any concrete, contradictory evidence.

The rule construing a party's unexplained contradictory testimony against that party applies to a summary-judgment respondent, not a movant, who cannot erase prior contrary testimony to prevail on her own motion.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Fabrizio. · filed 2018-01-16(c)

“The general rule of construing contradictory testimony against a summary judgment respondent is inapplicable here because [Fabrizio] is the ... movant.” ... Thus, even if the trial court determined that a reasonable explanation exists for Fabrizio’s contradictory testimony, this does not permit her to effectively “erase” her own prior contradictory testimony and prevail on her own motion for summary judgment.

At summary judgment, a court must eliminate the favorable portions of a party's unexplained self-contradictory testimony.

Mattie L. Smith v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, Lp · filed 2024-03-01(c)

“[I]f no explanation is given for the conflict in testimony . . . , the trial court must eliminate the favorable portions of the contradictory testimony.”

Before ruling on summary judgment based on a party's self-contradictory testimony, the trial judge must decide whether the testimony is inconsistent and whether the party offered a reasonable explanation.

BEBE'S CUISINE, INC. v. HAGHPARAST · filed 2025-02-27(c)

Whether the testimony of a party is contradictory is a question for the trial judge to decide. ... The burden rests upon the party giving the contradictory testimony to offer a reasonable explanation, and whether this has been done is an issue of law for the trial judge.

The Prophecy rule for construing self-contradictory testimony against the witness applies only to parties, not nonparty witnesses.

JOHNSON v. LEE SCOTT WOOD · filed 2025-09-24(c)

Indeed, Georgia courts have “never applied the Prophecy rule to the testimony of a non-party witness[.]”

A trial court may not resolve disputed facts when deciding a motion for summary judgment.

Hopkins v. Garner & Glover Co. · filed 1998-07-02

There is no evidence that it was the intent of the parties that the defendant could fall out of validation since achieved or that he had to continuously maintain such status for any period of time to validate. The trial court could not, under OCGA § 9-11-56, make findings as to such disputed facts.

Summary-judgment rulings are matters of law based on undisputed facts, not judicial factfinding, weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations.

Contract Harvesters, Inc. v. Mead Coated Board, Inc. · filed 1999-09-08(c)

Summary judgment appeals are de novo reviews because summary judgment rulings are strictly matters of law and are not based at all on finding of facts, made by court or jury, nor on weighing of evidence, nor on credibility of witnesses. Summary judgment rulings are based on undisputed facts.

Neither the trial court nor an appellate court may resolve factual conflicts when deciding summary judgment.

Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Boatwright · filed 2000-05-04(c)

Therefore, a jury’s determination is required as to whether McPherson failed to pay premiums when due and whether Atlanta Casualty sent notice of cancellation after premiums were due. The trial court properly denied Atlanta Casualty’s motion for summary judgment and erred in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Neither the trial court nor this Court can resolve issues of fact.

On summary judgment, courts do not resolve evidentiary conflicts but ask whether the plaintiff’s evidence presents a prima facie case authorizing a jury to find in the plaintiff’s favor.

Gunter v. Patterson Bank · filed 2001-01-16

Though we recognize the conflict in the evidence, “for purposes of summary judgment we do not look to the conflicts in the evidence but instead to whether plaintiff’s evidence presents a prima facie case which would authorize a jury to resolve the issues of fact in her favor.”

A trial court deciding summary judgment may determine only whether material factual disputes remain and may not resolve those disputes.

Taylor v. Thomas · filed 2007-06-20(c)

On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain. If, and only if, no disputed issue of material fact remains is the trial court authorized to grant summary judgment.

On summary judgment, the trial court may determine only whether disputed material facts remain and may not resolve those factual disputes.

Quarles v. Quarles · filed 2009-09-28(c)

On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain.

Summary judgment cannot resolve conflicts in material evidence or make credibility findings because those functions belong to the jury.

Montgomery v. Barrow · filed 2010-03-25

Moreover, it is precisely because there are bits of evidence in the record which create genuine issues of material fact that summary judgment is not appropriate in this case. It is not the role of this Court, but is the role of a jury to sort through the evidence, resolve conflicts, and make findings of fact based on the evidence it finds credible.

A trial court may determine whether a disputed material fact remains on summary judgment but may not resolve the factual dispute itself.

Glass v. Gates · filed 2011-09-01(c)

On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain.

On summary judgment, a court may not weigh evidence or determine credibility, and a conflict in the record precludes judgment.

Shell v. Tidewater Finance Co. · filed 2012-10-17(c)

In summary judgment proceedings, the court is not in a position to weigh the evidence or determine its credibility. Where the facts alleged in the record create a conflict in the evidence, summary judgment is precluded.

On summary judgment, a trial court may determine only whether disputed issues of material fact remain and may not resolve those disputes.

Smith v. Suntrust Bank · filed 2014-01-15(c)

On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact. A trial court is authorized only to determine whether disputed issues of material fact remain. If, and only if, no disputed issue of material fact remains is the trial court authorized to grant summary judgment.

A trial court may not resolve disputed issues of material fact on summary judgment.

NORWICH Et Al. v. THE SHRIMP FACTORY, INC. · filed 2015-04-10(c)

“On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact.”

On summary judgment, a court must accept the nonmovant's evidence as credible, give it all reasonable weight, and disregard conflicting evidence offered by the movant.

Nguyen v. Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C. · filed 2015-11-02(c)

When a court considers a motion for summary judgment [under OCGA § 9-11-56 (c)], it must view the pleadings and evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it must accept the credibility of the evidence upon which the nonmoving party relies, it must afford that evidence as much weight as it reasonably can bear, and to the extent that the moving party points to conflicting evidence, it must discredit that evidence for purposes of the motion.

A trial court is not a factfinder on summary judgment, and an appellate court independently determines whether subsection (c)'s requirements are met.

Hardin v. Hardin · filed 2017-06-19(c)

But the trial court also “is not a trier of fact on a motion for summary judgment.” ... Thus, “a trial court’s order of summary judgment, including any findings of fact, ‘enjoys no presumption of correctness on appeal, and an appellate court must satisfy itself de novo that the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) have been met.’”

Outside professional-malpractice actions, summary judgment cannot rest solely on opinion evidence because the jury must determine its weight and credibility.

Hh&l Electric, Inc. v. Hebbard Electric, Inc. · filed 2017-10-25

applies in professional malpractice actions, [and cases not involving] professional malpractice . . . fall[] under the general rule that . . . summary judgment can never issue based solely upon opinion evidence because such opinion evidence requires a factual determination by a jury whether to accept it in whole or in part and what weight and credibility to give the opinion.

A court may not weigh evidence on summary judgment because choosing among conflicting reasonable inferences belongs exclusively to the factfinder.

Phoebe Sumter Medical Center v. Government Employees Insurance Company · filed 2022-02-04(c)

The court is not permitted to weigh the evidence, as that task falls exclusively within the province of a factfinder.

When a court decides a pretrial spoliation motion on affidavits and depositions without an evidentiary hearing, the summary-judgment standard requires it to favor the opposing party and refrain from credibility determinations.

Golden Pantry Food Stores, Inc. v. Libby Stark · filed 2024-03-13(c)

In summation, the proper standard of review required the trial court to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of Golden Pantry without making credibility determinations.

When a trial court resolves a spoliation issue on affidavits and depositions without an evidentiary hearing, the summary-judgment standard requires it to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the opposing party's favor.

Davis v. Rx Waterproofing and Foundation Repair, LLC · filed 2025-01-28(c)

Thus, . . . the motion is properly reviewed under the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment, and as the party opposing the motion, [Davis] is entitled to have the evidence in the record viewed in the light most favorable to (him) and to have all reasonable inferences from the evidence drawn in (his) favor.

A trial court cannot grant summary judgment to a claimant for attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11 because both liability and amount are for the factfinder.

T & B, LLC v. SAMBI · filed 2026-06-24(c)

Consequently, “because both the liability for and amount of attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 13-6-11 are solely for the jury’s determination, a trial court is not authorized to grant summary judgment in favor of a claimant therefor.”

Even when the claimant bears the burden of proving an implied contractual assumption at trial, a defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving that no assumption occurred.

Boss v. Bassett Industries of North Carolina, Inc. · filed 1982-06-30

Although the burden of *248proving an express or implied assumption is on the claimant at trial, the defendant as movant on motion for summary judgment, has the burden of proving that an assumption did not occur.

Conflicting affidavits about a fact material to insurance coverage preclude summary judgment for either party.

Morrison Dental Associates, P.C. v. Wilcher · filed 1983-04-07

In light of the conflicting testimony by affidavit concerning when and how many applications were sent and received by the various parties, issues of fact still exist which preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law for either party.

Section 56 entitles an insurer to summary judgment when the record negates the existence of policy coverage.

Continental Insurance Company v. Hawkins · filed 1984-03-13

On the basis of the record before us, we conclude that the insurer has negated the existence of coverage under the terms of the policy and that the trial court consequently erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Uncontradicted affidavit evidence conclusively defeating the plaintiff's coverage and conspiracy theories entitles the defendant to judgment as a matter of law.

Long v. A. L. Williams & Associates, Inc. · filed 1984-11-09(c)

There is no evidence of record on appeal which contradicts the foregoing affidavit. ... Under these circumstances, NHL is entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law as to all of appellant’s claims against it, and the trial court properly so held. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment is proper when undisputed facts and unambiguous policy language establish that an insurance exclusion applies.

Crosby v. Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. · filed 1985-02-05(c)

Under the undisputed facts of this case, the plain language of the statute and the policies excludes appellants’ decedent from coverage. There being no genuine issue of fact as to any material issue, appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Conflicting evidence about the terms of an oral contract creates genuine material factual issues requiring jury determination.

Camera Haus, Inc. v. Olympus Corp. · filed 1985-06-18

The contract being entirely parol and the parties having presented conflicting evidence as to the terms of the contract, genuine issues of material fact remain for jury determination.

A movant relying on a written contract does not establish summary judgment by producing only part of that contract when the omitted document governs the parties' rights.

Adana Mortgage Bankers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Service Corp. · filed 1988-02-25(c)

Construing the evidence most strongly against appellee, there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to the controlling provisions of the contract. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Summary judgment is proper when undisputed evidence establishes a party's liability in the capacity shown on a promissory note and leaves no material factual issue.

Brice v. Northwest Georgia Bank · filed 1988-04-19(c)

It is undisputed that appellant signed the note as “borrower,” leaving no question of material fact for jury resolution. Therefore, summary judgment was properly awarded. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) bars summary judgment when contract ambiguities leave factual issues unresolved and the movant cannot establish entitlement as a matter of law.

Gold Kist, Inc. v. Wilson · filed 1994-04-18(c)

Accordingly, as issues of fact remain and as it cannot be said that appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see OCGA § 9-11-56 (c)), the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to appellees on this claim.

Subsection (c) permits judgment when an unambiguous contract and undisputed consideration leave no material issue for a jury.

Middlebrooks v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY · filed 1996-09-17(c)

In this case, we find there was valid consideration, no ambiguity in the exclusion, and no material issue of disputed fact remaining for jury determination. See OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Accordingly, we find no error.

Subsection (c) permits judgment as a matter of law when unambiguous insurance exclusions foreclose coverage for all asserted claims.

Southern v. Sphere-Drake Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 1997-05-13(c)

For these reasons, Sphere-Drake was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Subsection (c) precludes summary judgment when record evidence creates a material factual issue over waiver of a contractual closing deadline.

Frank v. Fleet Finance, Inc. · filed 1997-06-19(c)

We agree that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Fleet Finance on the contract termination issue. ... We find, however, that a fact question remains as to whether the parties waived the closing deadline.

A party seeking summary judgment on insurance coverage must establish no genuine material factual issue and that the undisputed facts, viewed for the opponent, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Glover v. Allstate Insurance · filed 1997-11-06(c)

For Allstate to prevail at summary judgment on the coverage issue, it must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable ... to the Glovers, warrant judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence presents no jury issue on whether a contractual payment was required or remained unpaid.

Ware v. Renfroe · filed 1998-03-24

As such, the evidence presented no jury issue as to whether the Wares were required to pay the $5,000 in additional earnest money plus interest thereon, or whether they failed to make such payment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Renfroes.

Summary judgment is proper for an insurer when the policy contains an applicable exclusion that does not violate public policy.

VINICIO A. DIAZ ARRIOLA v. COLEMAN · filed 2025-04-24(c)

And summary ... judgment is properly granted to an insurer when an insured’s policy contains an applicable exclusion that is not against public policy.

When contract ambiguity cannot be resolved as a matter of law, the contract's meaning is for a jury and summary judgment is improper.

SHE FARMS, LLC v. INVENERGY SOLAR DEVELOPMENT NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2025-10-29(c)

Where, as here, it is not possible to ascertain the parties’ intent, a jury must determine the meaning of the agreement. ... The trial court thus erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants on the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.

Unrefuted evidence establishing the absence of a defendant's legal duty or negligence supports summary judgment for that defendant.

Richards v. Mayor of Americus · filed 1981-04-23(c)

With this unrefuted evidence establishing the absence of any duty or negligence by this appellee, there was no genuine issue of fact to be decided by a jury and appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Chastain v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 122 Ga. App. 90 (176 SE2d 487)).

Summary judgment is proper when the record contains no evidence supporting the alleged degree of negligence and thus no material factual issue.

Smith v. Thompson · filed 1985-01-14

There is no evidence in the record that Thompson was grossly negligent; this is only an allegation by conjecture. Summary judgment to Thompson was proper, as there was no material issue of fact.

Negligence and assumption-of-risk issues are not proper for section 56 summary judgment unless the facts are plain and palpable.

Amica Mutual Insurance v. Fleet Multi Fuel Corp. · filed 1986-04-17

From the record presented, we cannot say that the issues of assumption of risk or negligence by appellant’s insured are plain and palpable upon the facts. Therefore, it follows that the grant of summary judgment as to these issues was not proper.

Summary judgment denying punitive damages is improper when the complaint alleges an independent tort arising from breaches of a fiduciary duty.

Giddens Construction Co. v. Fickling & Walker Co. · filed 1988-09-09(c)

The substance of matters pleaded in the complaint places appellee on due notice of its alleged liability arising from acts and omissions relating directly and independently to breaches of duty arising from the fiduciary relationship of the parties. The complaint sets forth a cause of action in tort.

Summary judgment must be denied when a genuine material factual issue remains concerning an alleged agency relationship.

Culberson v. Fulton-DeKalb Hospital Authority · filed 1991-09-09

Review of the record reveals there exists a genuine issue of material fact, within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-56, whether Dr. McMichael was an agent of Grady or the employee or agent of an independent contractor, Emory University.

Summary adjudication is improper when evidence permits a jury to allocate comparative fault between the parties.

Zumbado v. Lincoln Property Co. · filed 1993-06-02

With regard to Allstate’s motion, the issue of the comparative fault of Zumbado and Everett is not subject to summary adjudication on the record before us. The speed limit in the area was 40 or 45 mph and the length of the skid marks left by Everett provide evidence from which a jury could conclude that his excessive speed could have contributed to the accident, as well as the fact that he could have missed Zumbado if he had swerved to the right instead of the left. These matters create issues for the jury’s resolution.

Evidence of serious crimes at nearby hotels combined with frequent crime on the defendant's premises can create a material factual issue on foreseeability that precludes summary judgment.

Matt v. Days Inns of America, Inc. · filed 1994-03-18(c)

In this appeal, however, the record of criminal activity in the parking lots of nearby hotels, including serious crimes against persons, when coupled with the record of criminal activity in its own parking lot (a crime about once every two weeks) was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether Days Inns was put on notice that criminal conduct against its guests was foreseeable.

Subsection (c) requires denial of summary judgment when testimony creates a genuine material factual issue concerning the defendant's knowledge of a hazardous condition.

Chaves v. Kroger, Inc. · filed 1994-05-27(c)

For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Kroger, as a genuine issue of material fact existed within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the record contains no evidence of proximate cause, an essential element of the negligence claim.

Smith v. Mangram · filed 1996-08-22(c)

In the present case, Smith’s action fails because there is no evidence that his injuries were proximately caused by any action or failure to act on Mangram’s part. As proximate cause is an essential element in a negligence claim, the trial court did not err in granting Mangram’s motion for summary judgment.

A plaintiff who fails to produce evidence of the defendant's breach of duty cannot prevent summary judgment under subsection (c).

Shepard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1997-06-13(c)

Therefore, in the particular context of this case, Shepard has failed to come forth with evidence of any breach of duty by Wal-Mart.

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiff produces no evidence of injury, an essential element of the asserted tort claims.

Parris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1997-11-06(c)

However, as stated above, no evidence of any injury has been shown. ... For all of the foregoing reasons, summary judgment was therefore properly granted to State Farm and Bronaugh.

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment after undisputed evidence negates a necessary precondition of the plaintiff's vicarious-liability theory.

Jackson v. Reed · filed 1997-11-06(c)

These facts render the family purpose doctrine inapplicable to impose vicarious liability on Reed because it is uncontroverted that Stone was not a member of Reed’s immediate household. ... Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to Reed on this issue.

A store employee's greeting may create a distraction presenting a jury question whether the plaintiff's failure to discover a floor hazard was attributable to the defendant.

Lawson v. Bruno's Food Stores, Inc. · filed 1997-11-20(c)

A jury must decide, for one thing, whether Lawson’s failure to discover the hazard resulted from the store employee’s speaking to her. ... Bruno’s was not entitled to summary judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate in a negligence case when facts and reasonable inferences viewed favorably to the plaintiff create no triable issue on proximate cause.

Reid v. Midwest Transportation · filed 2004-11-19

Summary judgment is appropriate in negligence cases when, viewing all the facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence does not create a triable issue on the question of proximate cause.

Subsection (c) bars summary judgment when a genuine issue remains as to a material condition of a proposed settlement.

Ravan v. Stephens · filed 1979-03-07(c)

We cannot hold that there was a meeting of the minds of the parties. It was error for the trial judge to grant the plaintiff-appellee summary judgment as to the issue of settlement, since there remained a genuine issue as to a material fact. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) and citations thereunder.

Interrogatory answers that contradict a movant's evidence and reveal a possible compensable property interest create a material factual issue barring summary judgment.

Ashburn Motor Inn, Inc. v. White Advertising International · filed 1982-10-18(e)

From this evidence we find an issue of material fact as to whether appellants had an interest in the two signs for which they *440should be compensated. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the counterclaim. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; as amended through Ga. L. 1975, pp. 757, 759).

Section 56(c) denies summary judgment to a movant whose evidence does not demand a finding in that party’s favor as a matter of law.

Wiard v. Phoenix Insurance · filed 1983-03-15(c)

The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment or in granting that of appellee. Appellant’s evidence did not demand a finding in her favor as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

A creditor seeking a deficiency judgment does not carry its summary-judgment burden with resale-price evidence and a conclusory assertion that the collateral was sold commercially reasonably when it offers no fair-value evidence.

Bennett v. Bank of the South · filed 1983-10-20(c)

Although appellee presented evidence of the sale price, it presented no evidence of the fair and reasonable value of the vehicle. ... “Appellee not having sustained its burden of establishing there was no genuine issue of material fact under [OCGA § 9-ll-56(c) (Code Ann. § 81A-156)] the grant of summary judgment on appellee’s claim must be reversed.”

Section 56(c) bars summary judgment when the record indicates that the asserted default did not exist.

Alexander v. Heritage Corp. · filed 1985-06-05(c)

It would thus appear from the record that the appellants were not in fact in default when the balance due on the contract was accelerated and the automobile repossessed. It follows that the trial court erred in granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 56(c) requires summary judgment when the listed record materials show no genuine material issue and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Jones v. Clark · filed 1987-05-04(c)

Summary judgment “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. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

Section 56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine material issue exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Management Recruiters of Atlanta North, Inc. v. J & B SMITH COMPANY, INC. · filed 1987-10-28(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when “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).