Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp.

9 Citing cases

  1. Rollins v. Rollins

    338 Ga. App. 308 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Saying that "our law is clear that a trustee has a duty to exercise discretionary powers in good faith" (citing to OCGA §§ 53–12–7 (a) ; 53–12–260)

    Because the arguments in this case have evolved somewhat over its history, it is important to note that supplemental briefs, while useful to the Court, may not be used to expand the issues beyond those identified in the original enumerations of error. Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp ., 271 Ga.App. 591, 592, 610 S.E.2d 82 (2005).Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued that in 1993, Gary and Randall executed a “unilateral” amendment to the RIF partnership agreement, which, as noted above, allowed non pro rata redemptions from partners' capital accounts, named Gary and Randall as managing partners, and gave them exclusive authority to manage the partnership and make distribution decisions.

  2. Advantage Behavioral Health Sys. v. Cleveland

    350 Ga. App. 511 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In several recent cases, this Court has considered appeals despite the appellant's failure to file an enumeration of errors where we could discern the errors asserted on appeal. See State v. Martinez-Palomino , 329 Ga. App. 304, 305 n. 2, 764 S.E.2d 886 (2014) ; State v. Crapp , 317 Ga. App. 744, 744-745 (1), 732 S.E.2d 806 (2012) ; Jackson v. State , 314 Ga. App. 272, 272 n. 1, 724 S.E.2d 9 (2012) ; State v. Madison , 311 Ga. App. 31, 32 (1), 714 S.E.2d 714 (2011), overruled on other grounds by State v. Cohen , 302 Ga. 616, 807 S.E.2d 861 (2017) ; Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp. , 271 Ga. App. 591, 592 (1), 610 S.E.2d 82 (2005) ; Leslie v. Williams , 235 Ga. App. 657, 658-659 (1), 510 S.E.2d 130 (1998), disapproved of on other grounds by Herr v. Withers , 237 Ga. App. 420, 515 S.E.2d 174 (1999). This Court's conclusion in Martinez-Palomino , supra, 329 Ga. App. at 305 n. 2, 764 S.E.2d 886, is illustrative of these cases:

  3. Jackson v. State

    314 Ga. App. 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute when, inter alia , the defendant was observed handling "lots" of marijuana (i.e. , 26.45 ounces) packaged into three individual bags with a street value of over $1,000

    We nevertheless address Jackson's arguments to the extent that they may be ascertained from his brief. See OCGA § 5–6–30 (Georgia's Appellate Practice Act shall be liberally construed to avoid refusal to consider any points raised); State v. Madison, 311 Ga.App. 31(1), 714 S.E.2d 714 (2011) (reaching the merits of the case although the State failed to include enumerations of error in its brief since it was apparent from the notice of appeal, the record, and the brief what judgment was appealed and what errors were asserted); Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 271 Ga.App. 591, 592(1), 610 S.E.2d 82 (2005) (addressing appellant's arguments, to the extent that they could be ascertained from his briefs, notwithstanding the absence of enumerations of error). On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in a light most favorable to the verdict and [the defendant] no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence.

  4. In Interest of N. S. E.

    A08A0096 (Ga. Ct. App. May. 29, 2008)

    (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 271 Ga. App. 591, 594 (4) ( 610 SE2d 82) (2005). In the absence of a transcript, we must assume that the juvenile court's ruling was correct.

  5. Anderson v. Hardoman

    286 Ga. App. 499 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    But the "motion" is not notarized and the referenced application is not contained in the record. Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 271 Ga.App. 591, 594 (4) ( 610 SE2d 82) (2005) (party asserting error on appeal has the burden to show it affirmatively by the record); see Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (3) (i) (requiring each enumerated error to be supported by specific reference to the record). Nevertheless, we agree with Anderson that the dismissals were not authorized. "It is a well established rule in Georgia that a paper is said to be filed, when it is delivered to the proper officer, and by him received to be kept on file."

  6. Akkad Holdings, LLC v. Trapollo, LLC

    1:20-cv-4476-MLB (N.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2021)

    The Court agrees. Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 610 S.E.2d 82, 84 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005) (punitive damages are not recoverable for breach of contract claims).

  7. Hill v. Macon Police Dep't

    No. 5:10-CV-472 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2013)   Cited 4 times
    Applying Georgia's similar standard for IIED and noting, “[E]motional distress includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea. It is only where it is extreme that liability arises. The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable [person] could be expected to endure it.”

    If a plaintiff cannot satisfy all the elements of his or her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 271 Ga. App. 591, 594 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Gwinnett Health Sys., Inc. v. Delu, 264 Ga. App. 863, 868 (2003).

  8. HILL v. MULL

    5:04-CV-329 (DF) (M.D. Ga. Oct. 23, 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Finding issue of material fact existed as to actual malice where officer charged and threw plaintiff to the ground while handcuffed, kneed plaintiff in the back, and watched as another officer stood on plaintiff's feet

    To recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress under Georgia law, a plaintiff must prove each of the following elements: "(1) intentional or reckless conduct; (2) which is extreme and outrageous; and (3) caused emotional distress; (4) which is severe." Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 610 S.E.2d 82, 85 (Ga.Ct.App. 2005) (quoting Trimble v. Circuit City Stores, 469 S.E.2d 776, 778 (Ga.Ct.App. 1996)). "Whether a claim rises to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law."

  9. Holmes v. City of East Point

    Civil Action No. 105-CV-2921-MHS (N.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2005)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice and, although not obligated to do so, sua sponte permitting plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days and holding that if plaintiff failed to do so, the court would dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice

    Plaintiff states that the conduct of defendants was intentional, outrageous, and caused plaintiff to suffer extreme and severe emotional distress. "Plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) intentional or reckless conduct (2) which is extreme and outrageous and (3)caused the emotional distress (4) which is severe." Blockum v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 271 Ga. App. 591, 594 (2005) quoting Trimble v. Circuit City Stores, 220 Ga. App. 498, 499 (1996). It is not beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress which would entitle him to relief.