Cushman v. Raiford

10 Citing cases

  1. Duke v. Buice

    249 Ga. App. 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 7 times
    In Duke, the defendant asserted that she used her mother's address for mail, although she actually lived with her father, because her father moved around a lot.

    Next, we consider whether the trial court erred in determining that the statutory requirements for notorious service of process were not fulfilled. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of service bears the burden of establishing that the service was insufficient.. A sherrif's return of service "can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 (3) ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). (Citations and punctuation omitted.)

  2. Holmes Company of Orlando v. Carlisle

    658 S.E.2d 185 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    1. A defendant who challenges the sufficiency of service bears the burden of showing improper service. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). "The sheriff's return of service constitutes prima facie proof of the facts recited therein. . . . The return can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing, but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."

  3. McCullers v. Harrell

    298 Ga. App. 798 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 5 times

    Murray v. Sloan Paper Co., 212 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1) ( 442 SE2d 795) (1994) (citations omitted); see Poteate v. Rally Mfg., 260 Ga. App. 34, 35 (1) ( 579 SE2d 44) (2003). See Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996); Murray, supra. See USCR 6.3; Batesville Casket Co. v. Watkins Mortuary, 293 Ga. App. 854, 855-856 (3) ( 668 SE2d 476) (2008).

  4. Calhoun v. Govern. Employees Ins. Co.

    675 S.E.2d 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)

    Murray v. Sloan Paper Co., 212 Ga. App. 648, 649 (1) ( 442 SE2d 795) (1994) (citations omitted); see Poteate v. Rally Mfg., 260 Ga. App. 34, 35 (1) ( 579 SE2d 44) (2003). See Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996); Murray, supra.State Farm c. Ins. Co. v. Manders, 292 Ga. App. 793, 794 (1) ( 665 SE2d 886) (2008); Ballenger v. Floyd, 282 Ga. App. 574, 575 ( 639 SE2d 554) (2006).

  5. Aikens v. Brent Scarbrough Co.

    287 Ga. App. 296 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 8 times

    In the instant case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in resolving the factual dispute in favor of Scarbrough Co. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). (Citation omitted.)

  6. Wells v. Drain Doctor, Inc.

    274 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    [Cit.]" Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 SE2d 554) (1996). "Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court's finding of insufficient service of process must be affirmed. . . . Those findings will not be disturbed on appellate review when supported by any evidence."

  7. Poteate v. Rally Mfg., Inc.

    260 Ga. App. 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    [Cit.]" Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). Therefore, the motion Rally filed was more properly denominated a motion to dismiss.

  8. Metzler v. Rowell

    248 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 28 times
    Affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit by a property owner against local residents and an environmental group for tortious interference with a sales option contract, holding that "[t]he framing of [plaintiff's] claims as tortious interference with contract or business relations does not render the assertion of privilege [established by the anti-SLAPP statute] inapplicable"

    "Motions to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process are matters in abatement, and do not form a proper basis for motions for summary judgment or convert to motions for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are considered. [Cit.]"Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 786( 472 S.E.2d 554)(1996). The trial court properly considered affidavits regarding the composition and organization of Wildwood Urban Forest Group.

  9. Franchell v. Clark

    241 Ga. App. 128 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 28 times

    When a defendant in a lawsuit challenges the sufficiency of service, that defendant bears the burden of showing improper service. Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). "The return can only be set aside upon evidence which is not only clear and convincing, but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit."

  10. Kim v. Platt

    493 S.E.2d 249 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 6 times

    " (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Cushman v. Raiford, 221 Ga. App. 785, 787 ( 472 S.E.2d 554) (1996). While a return of service imports verity and itself is prima facie evidence concerning the facts recited therein, it is not conclusive and may be traversed and set aside by proof that such facts are untrue. Id; Webb v. Tatum, 202 Ga. App. 89, 91 ( 413 S.E.2d 263) (1991).