Jordan v. Tri County Ag, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. RPG Hosp.

    368 Ga. App. 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jordan v. Tri County Ag, Inc. , 248 Ga. App. 661, 663 (1), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). This is allowed when "it is manifest that the writing was not intended to speak the whole contract[.]"

  2. In re Estate of McKitrick

    326 Ga. App. 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Invoking de novo standard of review to address ruling by probate court even though parties did not challenge the ruling on appeal

    Having agreed that the Ward would compensate her attorney for each hour of his work at a particular rate of pay and given that the particular hourly rate would be integral to such an agreement, it could not have been the intent of the Ward and her attorney that there was no hourly rate. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga.App. 661, 663(1), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). But this ambiguity can be resolved by the consideration of parol evidence.

  3. Carolina Industrial Products, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.

    189 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Kan. 2001)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that aircraft manufacturers have a duty to provide instructions for continued airworthiness

    "If the writing appears on its face to be an incomplete contract and if the parol evidence offered is consistent with and not contradictory of the terms of the written instrument, then the parol evidence is admissible to complete the agreement between the parties." Jordan v. Tri County AG, Inc., 546 S.E.2d 528, 531 (Ga.Ct.App. 2001). The plaintiffs do not argue that the oral statement was an independent contract, supported by additional consideration.

  4. Z-Space, Inc. v. Dantanna's CNN Ctr., LLC.

    349 Ga. App. 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that "allegations of mail and wire fraud in a civil RICO action must not only be pled in accordance with the heightened pleading standard of OCGA ยง 9-11-9 (b), but also are required to include such matters as the time, place, and content of the alleged misrepresentations, as well as who made the alleged misrepresentations and to whom"

    The term "racketeering activity" means the commission of at least one of the enumerated types of crimes listed in the RICO statute, also known as predicate offenses. OCGA ยง 16-14-3 (5) (A), (C) ; see also Jordan v. Tri County AG, Inc. , 248 Ga. App. 661, 666 (5), 546 S.E.2d 528 (2001). As is relevant here, a "pattern" means "[e]ngaging in at least two acts of racketeering activity."

  5. Harris v. Baker

    287 Ga. App. 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    (Citation and footnote omitted.) Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661 ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001). So viewed, the record reflects that Baker is in the residential construction business.

  6. Aon Risk Services, Inc. v. Commercial & Military Systems Co.

    270 Ga. App. 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 18 times

    As CMS's claims of theft are not supported by the record, CMS has failed to show two predicate acts to support a pattern of racketeering activity. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661, 666-667 (5) ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Aon on CMS's RICO claim.

  7. Allen v. Jones

    604 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    Applying Howey and concluding viatical settlements are securities under Georgia Securities Act

    A "pattern" means engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering activity, which is defined as the commission of a crime in any of 37 specified categories of offenses. See Jordan v. Tri County Ag, 248 Ga. App. 661, 666 (5) ( 546 SE2d 528) (2001); see also OCGA ยง 16-14-3 (9). The complaint alleged that the viatical contracts sold by ABC were unregistered securities sold by an unregistered agent, in violation of the Georgia Securities Act of 1973.

  8. Mallard v. Forest Heights Water Works

    260 Ga. App. 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that appellant waived argument that the trial court erred by considering appellee's summary judgment motion without first ruling on appellant's motion to compel discovery responses because appellant never moved to continue the summary judgment ruling or otherwise object at the trial level

    Hall v. Cracker Barrel c.Jordan v. Tri County AG, 248 Ga. App. 661 ( 546 S.E.2d 528) (2001).Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 495(4) ( 405 S.E.2d 474) (1991).

  9. Cone Financial Group v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau

    Civil Action: 7:09-CV-118 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 4, 2010)

    When a contract is unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, vary, or contradict the terms of a written contract. Jordan v. Tri Count AG, Inc., 248 Ga. App. 661, 663, 546 S.E.2d 528, 531 (2001). However, parol evidence is admissible to complete the agreement of the parties "[i]f the writing appears on its face to be an incomplete contract and if the parol evidence offered is consistent with and not contradictory of the terms of the written instrument."