Eubanks v. Davis

1 Citing case

  1. Eubanks v. Davis

    286 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    Following the rule set out in Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104 ( 210 S.E.2d 13) (1974), we remanded and directed that the dismissal motions be sustained as motions "for more definite statement, as outlined in Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, 142 Ga. App. 818, 819 (3) ( 237 S.E.2d 223) (1977)." Eubanks v. Davis, 146 Ga. App. 146 (1) ( 245 S.E.2d 495) (1978). Tucker, supra, provides that "[t]he more definite statement to be made ... must meet the standard of pleading fraud set forth in cases such as Diversified Holding Corp.... [ 120 Ga. App. 455 ( 170 S.E.2d 863) (1969) and] ... Continental Inv. Corp. v. Cherry, 124 Ga. App. 863, 865 (2) ( 186 S.E.2d 301) (1971), failing which the complaint will be subject to dismissal at that point."