Pierce v. Wise

4 Citing cases

  1. Cook v. Covington Credit

    290 Ga. App. 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 14 times

    Lockhart, supra, 281 Ga. App. at 147. Pierce v. Wise, 282 Ga. App. 709, 713 (2) ( 639 SE2d 348) (2006). Here, despite evidence that defendants made numerous demands over the telephone and personally confronted Cook in an effort to have him repay the loan he had been given, Cook has failed to demonstrate that defendants' conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to sustain his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  2. Ellison v. Burger King Corp.

    294 Ga. App. 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 44 times
    In Ellison v. Burger King Corp., 294 Ga. App. 814, 815, 820, 670 S.E.2d 469, 471, 474 (2008), the manager of a Burger King restaurant, "who was charged with responding to customer complaints," came out from behind the counter to respond to a customer who said that she was not being served.

    Yarbray v. Southern Bell c. Co., 261 Ga. 703, 706 (2) ( 409 SE2d 835) (1991).Pierce v. Wise, 282 Ga. App. 709, 713 (2) ( 639 SE2d 348) (2006).Lockhart v. Marine Mfg. Corp., 281 Ga. App. 145, 147 ( 635 SE2d 405) (2006).

  3. Dovetail Properties v. Herron

    652 S.E.2d 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that “when an owner owns two adjacent parcels, sells one, and land locks the remaining parcel he or she owns, a private way of necessity cannot be obtained”

    Knowingly purchasing landlocked property, on the other hand, does not preclude a purchaser from obtaining a private way of necessity. Pierce v. Wise, 282 Ga. App. 709, 712 (1) ( 639 SE2d 348) (2006). In the case before us, Dovetail made out a prima facie case by proving that its property is landlocked. Herron and Drayton attempted to meet their burden of persuasion by arguing that Dovetail voluntarily landlocked itself.

  4. Flyboy Aviation Properties, LLC v. Franck (In re Flyboy Aviation Properties, LLC)

    501 B.R. 808 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013)

    The Appellant's property was “landlocked,” because use of roads and taxiways on airport property was the only way Appellant could access the leased property. Although the Court believes that a Georgia court may agree with providing a way of necessity for airplanes given the holding in Pierce v. Wise, 282 Ga.App. 709, 639 S.E.2d 348 (2006), where the Court of Appeals acknowledged that transportation has changed over time and that this could require ingress and egress by means other than water, Hynes is clearly distinguishable from the situation here. In reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the Hynes court focused on the origins of easements by necessity and the policy of preventing the idleness of real property.