Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Ga. App. 685 - Wright v. JDN Structured Finance, Inc.

239 Ga. App. 685 - Wright v. JDN Structured Finance, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 226 Ga. App. 459 - Matjoulis v. Integon General Ins. Corp. · Robinson v. Kroger Co. · Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc. · Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson & Steinichen, Inc. · 232 Ga. App. 599 - Tanner v. Larango

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

  1. “On motion for summary judgment a party’s self-conflicting testimony is to be construed against her unless a reasonable explanation for the contradiction is offered. Gentile v. Miller, Stevenson &c., 257 Ga. 583 ( 361 SE2d 383 ) (1987); Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., [supra at 30]. As [Patsy Mooney] offered no explanation for the contradiction between her affidavit and deposition testimony, the trial court was required to eliminate the favorable portions of the contradictory testimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he ultimate issue is whether [the defendant] was negligent in maintaining a hazardous condition on the property, and in everyday life, persons are required to negotiate floors, steps and doorways. Even if the curbed sidewalk was hazardous as [plaintiff] asserts, the condition was open and obvious, and thus, in the exercise of ordinary care, she could have avoided it. There is no duty to warn of the obvious. 16”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “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.”
    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.