Duke v. Buice

7 Citing cases

  1. In re C. B.

    No. A23A0726 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2023)

    Our review is for abuse of discretion. Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga.App. 164, 166 (547 S.E.2d 561) (2001).

  2. McDaniel v. Smith

    CIVIL ACTION NO. CV507-79 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 30, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Unless the trial court abuses its discretion, its findings regarding the sufficiency of service of process "will not be disturbed on appellate review when supported by any evidence." Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 166 (2001). B. The Georgia Renewal Statute

  3. Scott v. Smith-Denton

    364 Ga. App. 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Duke v. Buice , 249 Ga. App. 164, 166, 547 S.E.2d 561 (2001). However, "[w]here it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm.

  4. Mandt v. Lovell

    728 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Lovell's motion, however, states plainly his request for relief. It cannot be said beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. See Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga.App. 164, 165, 547 S.E.2d 561 (2001) (pleadings are judged by their function rather than the name given to them by a party, and substance rather than mere nomenclature controls).Baker v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 199 Ga.App. 758, 406 S.E.2d 87 (1991).

  5. Summerlin v. Ga. Pines Community Service Bd.

    278 Ga. App. 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    While the Georgia Tort Claims Act clearly provides the exclusive remedy for any tort committed by a state officer or employee, and the procedural strictures of the Georgia Tort Claims Act must be strictly construed, this does not render the service provisions in OCGA § 9-11-4 inapplicable. See Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165-166 ( 547 SE2d 561) (2001). OCGA § 50-21-25 (a).

  6. Smith v. Local Union 1863

    260 Ga. App. 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that attorney's acts within scope of his authority are binding on client

    (Punctuation omitted.) Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165 ( 547 S.E.2d 561) (2001).State Soil Water Conservation Comm. v. Stricklett, 252 Ga. App. 430, 436(4)(a) ( 555 S.E.2d 800) (2001).

  7. Glatfelter v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

    253 Ga. App. 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    Holding decision to walk to connecting gate after wheelchair failed to arrive broke chain of causation

    (Footnote omitted.) Duke v. Buice, 249 Ga. App. 164, 165-166 ( 547 S.E.2d 561) (2001). See Webb, 202 Ga. App. at 91.