Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 Ga. App. 539 - Toncee, Inc. v. Thomas

219 Ga. App. 539 - Toncee, Inc. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 263 Ga. App. 155 - Rental Equipment Group, LLC v. MACI, LLC (2003), 223 Ga. App. 842 - Fisher v. Toombs County Nursing Home (1996)

35 state decisions

170199520002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Talmadge v. Talmadge · 150 Ga. App. 663 - American Standard, Inc. v. Jessee · 186 Ga. App. 27 - National Consultants, Inc. v. Burt · 206 Ga. App. 663 - Professional Consulting Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Ibrahim · 162 Ga. App. 438 - Touche Ross & Co. v. DASD CORP.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]n cases involving the issue of sever-ability, where an instrument in writing, purporting to be a bilateral contract, contains mutual promises, which without more and when taken independently of certain subsidiary provisions in the instrument would render the instrument valid as a contract, such subsidiary pro visions will not, unless their terms imperatively demand it, be given a construction that will nullify and completely destroy the entire obligations of either party under the instrument and thus render the instrument lacking in mutuality and void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]mple testimony allowed the [trial court] to determine that [Shroka] did not defectively or deficiently perform his employment duties or obligations, so as to be entitled to lost wages for the remaining period of the term. As to contrary evidence, it is the duty of the [factfinder] to determine the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicting testimony. 13”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he construction placed upon a contract by the parties thereto, as shown by their acts and conduct, is entitled to much weight and may be conclusive upon them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.