Justice v. Sci Ga. Funeral Serv. Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Lovein Funeral Home

    358 Ga. App. 10 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 17 times

    Based on the contradiction in the evidence, "there is, at the very least, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether" the Defendants breached the terms of the crematory contract by distributing some of Pauline's ashes to Howard upon receipt from the Crematory, without Moore's authorization. Justice v. SCI Georgia Funeral Svcs., Inc. , 329 Ga. App. 635, 637 (1), 765 S.E.2d 778 (2014). See also Ly v. Jimmy Carter Commons , 286 Ga. 831, 833 (1), 691 S.E.2d 852 (2010) ("On summary judgment, a trial court is not authorized to resolve disputed issues of material fact.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

  2. Plantation At Bay Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Glasier

    349 Ga. App. 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    In Plantation at Bay Creek, for example, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had not established severe emotional distress.

    Kirkland v. Tamplin , 285 Ga. App. 241, 245 (2), 645 S.E.2d 653 (2007).Justice v. SCI Ga. Funeral Svcs. , 329 Ga. App. 635, 639 (4), 765 S.E.2d 778 (2014), quoting Ruotanen , 246 Ga. App. at 436, 541 S.E.2d 66. Further, the Glasiers have failed to produce evidence that they suffered severe emotional distress.