King v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “Since issues of fact remain, summary judgment is inappropriate, and the trial court’s ruling must be reversed. Had the trial court consolidated the hearing on the [interlocutory] injunction and the trial on the merits and made a ruling, thereon, as provided in OCGA § 9-11-65 (a) (2) [cits.], this appeal could have proceeded on the merits. As it now stands, the trial court must hold another hearing to consider additional evidence, although it need not rehear that already presented [in connection with the interlocutory injunction]. [Cits.] King v. Ingram, 250 Ga. 887, 888 ( 302 SE2d 105 ) (1983). “In suits for injunction . . . counsel should consider not making motions for summary judgment, where the finding of a genuine issue of material fact following a time consuming appeal necessitates a trial. Because such suits are tried non-jury, time and expense can be saved by letting the trial court conduct the trial. . . . On appeal from a trial granting or denying an injunction . . . the issue is whether there is any evidence to support the trial judge’s decision. On the other hand, on appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, the issue is whether there is any genuine issue of fact. These differences in the issues on appeal make a significant difference in the way an appeal is decided.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Georgia Canoeing Ass'n v. Henry