Mitchell v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2013
15 state decisions
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 Culwell v. Lomas & Nettleton Company · State v. Mulkey · Scott v. Field · Turner v. Harper · 156 Ga. App. 292 - Green v. COHUTTA BANKING COMPANY
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.
“[i]f the losing party suffers dismissal of his § 9-11-56 (h) appeal for failure to fulfill procedural requirements, the losing party should, in return for his privilege of direct appeal, suffer the same sanction of res judicata which attaches to a final judgment from which a procedurally defective appeal is taken. Therefore, we hold that a losing party on summary judgment who puts the machinery of immediate appellate review under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) into motion, yet commits a procedural default fatal to his appeal, is foreclosed from thereafter resubmitting the matter for review on appeal of the final judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““... the General Assembly did not intend to force a grantee to refuse to satisfy or cancel at his peril, if his refusal is not wanton or oppressive, but is the result of an honest doubt. In instances where there is a bona fide controversy, and the grantee has a good faith belief that the debt has not been paid in full, imposition of the statutory penalties clearly would not serve the statutory purpose of punishing grantees who have unreasonably withheld cancellation, and in fact would hinder the object of deterrence by arbitrarily and capriciously imposing penalties where none are merited ... [Thus] where there are honest, disputed, or doubtful questions, a grantee is not liable for the refusal to satisfy an instrument if his refusal is made in good faith and under the honest belief that the debt has not been paid. The grantee of the instrument will not be excused, however, where his refusal to satisfy results from mere inadvertence, indifference, inattention, or wantonness. Mitchell v. Oliver, 254 Ga. 112, 116 , 327 S.E.2d 216 .””
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.