§

Key Professional Systems v. Citicorp Indus. Credit

170 Ga. App. 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)
Key Professional Systems v. Citicorp Indus. Credit

3 Citing cases

  1. Governor's Towne Club v. Caffrey Constr

    273 Ga. App. 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    See Sherrill v. Stockel, 252 Ga. App. 276, 278 ( 557 SE2d 8) (2001). See Key Professional Systems v. Citicorp Indus. Credit, 170 Ga. App. 94, 94-95 (1) ( 316 SE2d 495) (1984) (the movant in a motion for summary judgment is required conclusively to negate the existence of all material issues of fact). 2.

  2. John D. Stephens, Inc. v. Gwinnett County

    333 S.E.2d 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    ' Jonesboro Tool c. Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 158 Ga. App. 755, 758 ( 282 S.E.2d 211) (1981)." Key Professional Systems v. Citicorp Ind. Credit, 170 Ga. App. 94 ( 316 S.E.2d 495) (1984). Since a number of the court's factual findings in the instant case are contradicted by the evidence, we can only conclude that the proper burden of proof was not considered or that it was applied incorrectly.

  3. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Chapman

    174 Ga. App. 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that there is not "any legal support" for a duty of a stockbroker to advise clients that "when they ordered sales, that the result would be that they would not be entitled to the dividend stocks."

    On a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving party to conclusively negate the existence of all material facts. Key Professional Systems v. Citicorp Industrial Credit, 170 Ga. App. 94 ( 316 S.E.2d 495) (1984). The evidence is undisputed that under the rules of the stock exchange, because the Chapmans sold their stock before the ex-dividend date, Drexel is entitled to the Multimedia dividends.