Fiffee v. Jiggetts

4 Citing cases

  1. Fourth Div. Liggins v. Parkwood Living

    907 S.E.2d 731 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)

    Service of the notice of a hearing pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-6 (d) is governed by OCGA § 9-11-5 (b), which pro- vides that "[s]ervice … shall be made by delivering a copy to the person to be served or by mailing it to the person to be served at the person’s last known address[.]" See Fiffee v. Jiggetts, 353 Ga. App. 730, 734 (2), 839 S.E.2d 224 (2020). In this case, Smith’s address was listed on her pro se answer.

  2. Skipper v. Paul

    356 Ga. App. 281 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 645 (2), 740 S.E.2d 363. Compare Fiffee v. Jiggetts , 353 Ga. App. 730, 736 (2), 839 S.E.2d 224 (2020) (failure to provide proper notice of a custody modification hearing constituted nonamendable defect that can justify setting aside judgment). We therefore reverse the trial court's order setting aside the adoption decree.

  3. Ga. Gov't Transparency & Campaign Fin. Comm'n v. New Ga. Project Action Fund

    366 Ga. App. 198 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    See Fiffee v. Jiggetts , 353 Ga. App. 730, 734 (2), 839 S.E.2d 224 (2020) ("There is no magic in nomenclature, and we judge pleadings, motions and orders not by their name but by their function and substance....") (citation omitted). As to AFG's response letter that it initially sent to the Commission during the agency proceedings, we conclude that the letter does not constitute a motion under the Civil Practice Act or the Commission's own regulations.

  4. Daily Underwriters Am. v. Williams

    354 Ga. App. 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "There is no magic in nomenclature, and we judge pleadings, motions and orders not by their name but by their function and substance, being always mindful to construe such documents in a manner compatible with the best interests of justice." Fiffee v. Jiggetts , 353 Ga. App. 730, 734 (2), 839 S.E.2d 224 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). Per force, as arguments are refined through dialectic exchanges in the adversary process, there is no duty to update the initial pleadings to reflect such refinements.