Kelley v. Randolph

7 Citing cases

  1. Houston v. James

    358 Ga. App. 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    At the outset, we note that this Court reviews de novo a trial court's grant of summary judgment, construing all facts and inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kelley v. Randolph , 295 Ga. 721, 722 (1), 763 S.E.2d 858 (2014). [T]he non-movant is not required to produce evidence demanding judgment for that party, but only to present evidence which raises a material issue of fact.

  2. Columbia Cnty. v. Satcher

    No. A23A0774 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    It was the landowners' burden to prove the prescriptive easement by a preponderance of the evidence. Kelley v. Randolph, 295 Ga. 721, 723-724 (1) (763 S.E.2d 858) (2014). They presented no evidence regarding the county's claim of right before they purchased the property in 1996 (other than evidence that public water has flowed on the property at least since 1976).

  3. Talboy v. Dukes

    No. A23A1068 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2023)

    (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Kelley v. Randolph, 295 Ga. 721, 722 (1) (763 S.E.2d 858) (2014).

  4. Foley Commons Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Kramarich

    366 Ga. App. 236 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    The burden of establishing prescriptive title by adverse possession lies on the party claiming it. Kelley v. Randolph , 295 Ga. 721, 722 (1), 763 S.E.2d 858 (2014). The evidence here authorized the trial court to find that Foley did not meet its burden of showing that it acquired written title to the disputed part of the alleyway.

  5. BC EAV, LLC v. Havlik

    365 Ga. App. 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    See Gigger v. White , 277 Ga. 68, 70-71 (1), 586 S.E.2d 242 (2003). The burden of establishing prescriptive title by adverse possession lies on the party claiming it, Kelley v. Randolph , 295 Ga. 721, 722 (1), 763 S.E.2d 858 (2014), whereas the burden of establishing fraud is on the party opposing adverse possession, Barfield , 200 Ga. at 281, 36 S.E.2d 766. Whether adverse possession has been established is a mixed question of law and fact: the underlying facts constituting adverse possession generally are to be decided by the factfinder, whereas whether the proven (or, in this case, undisputed) facts constitute adverse possession is a question of law for the court.

  6. Carter v. Vistacare, Llc.

    335 Ga. App. 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Stating that the renewal statute "suspend the running of the statute of limitations"

    Therefore, we will review both the First Order and the Final Order under the de novo standard of review applicable to orders on summary judgment, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Carter, as the nonmovant. See Kelley v. Randolph, 295 Ga. 721, 722(1), 763 S.E.2d 858 (2014). VistaCare attached copies of the 2011 Complaint, an amended version of that complaint, and excerpts from the pre-trial hearing in the First Litigation as exhibits to its brief in support of the motion to dismiss.

  7. Jobling v. Shelton

    334 Ga. App. 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 12 times

    We review the trial court's order granting Shelton's motion under the de novo standard of review applicable to orders on summary judgment, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Joblings, as nonmovants. See Kelley v. Randolph, 295 Ga. 721, 722(1), 763 S.E.2d 858 (2014). Shelton testified that determining how to prioritize where crews were dispatched required a subjective decision based on the event, and “[e]very event's different.”