Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Ga. App. 137 - Goring v. Martinez

224 Ga. App. 137 - Goring v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 229 Ga. App. 160 - Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc. (1997), 232 Ga. App. 680 - Supchak v. Pruitt (1998)

52 state decisions

320199620002010decided

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 Lau's Corp., Inc. v. Haskins · Precise v. City of Rossville · 208 Ga. App. 764 - MALAGA Management Co. v. John Deere Co. · Hewett v. Kalish · Hayes v. Murray

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case. If there is no evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to any essential element of plaintiff's claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial. [Cit.] A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party's case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue.”
    3 later decisions 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.