OCGA § 9-11-56 (c); Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 ( 405 SE2d 474) (1991).Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence shows that AS and its two original shareholders entered into a Shareholders Agreement on November 19, 1987. Among other things, the 1987 Shareholders Agreement restricted the transfer of stock in AS, was binding upon the parties and their respective executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and terminated upon AS's bankruptcy or the disposal of the shareholders' stock after the removal of the transfer restrictions.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence showed that Consumer Solutions sold used automobiles to the public, specializing in high-end brands.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence shows that Oil-Dri, as lessee, and Thompson, as lessor, entered into a mineral lease, dated January 12, 1977, and amended as of January 1, 2000, giving Oil-Dri the right to mine and remove minerals from certain of Thompson's real property.
For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and affirm. We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, warrant judgment as a matter of law.
OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998).Latson v. Boca, 278 Ga. 113 ( 598 SE2d 485) (2004).
Our review is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence shows that Abernathy rented an apartment from Cedar Heights in March 2001. Apartments at the complex were available for rent only to low-income persons who were 62 years of age or older.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence shows the following.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). The record shows that Progressive's policy was originally issued on March 18, 2000, effective through March 18, 2001, with stated limits of $25,000/$50,000 for bodily injury liability insurance and $15,000/$30,000 for UM insurance.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). Although ASWSA claims that material issues remain for the trier of fact, it fails to argue how the disputed facts are relevant.
Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Supchak v. Pruitt, 232 Ga. App. 680, 682 (1) ( 503 SE2d 581) (1998). So viewed, the evidence shows that Townsend retained Lipman as her attorney to represent her in connection with a personal injury claim arising out of a collision between her automobile and a piece of construction equipment.