Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah

4 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. Osinuga

    330 Ga. App. 278 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    OCGA § 9–10–160. See Tucker v. Signature Flight Support–Savannah, Inc., 219 Ga.App. 834, 835, 466 S.E.2d 694 (1996) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance where, inter alia, the appellants conceded that they could not meet the requirements of OCGA § 9–10–160.). Even if this were not enough to justify denying the application for a continuance, the Civil Practice Code provides that “[a] party making an application for a continuance must show that he has used due diligence.”

  2. Surgijet v. Hicks

    236 Ga. App. 80 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 12 times

    OCGA § 9-10-160 (3). As [SurgiJet] readily admit[s] that [the absent witness] resided outside of Georgia, it was not error for the trial court to deny [SurgiJet's] request for a continuance." Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, 219 Ga. App. 834, 835 ( 466 S.E.2d 694) (1996). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of SurgiJet's motion for continuance.

  3. Minor v. State

    501 S.E.2d 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    [Cit.]" Murphy, supra at 154; see also Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah, Inc., 219 Ga. App. 834, 844 ( 466 S.E.2d 694) (1996). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Minor's request for a continuance.

  4. Capital Floors, LLC v. Furman

    351 Ga. App. 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that "pleadings" includes a complaint and an answer, and citing OCGA § 9-11-7

    Consequently, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Capital Floors’ motion for a continuance to the extent it was predicated on the absence of an ill witness. See Davis , 330 Ga. App. at 280-281 (1), 767 S.E.2d 37 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying request for continuance due to absent witness, where party failed to show that all eight requirements of OCGA § 9-10-160 had been met); Tucker v. Signature Flight Support-Savannah , 219 Ga. App. 834, 835, 466 S.E.2d 694 (1996) (trial court acted within its discretion in denying request for continuance due to illness of two absent witnesses, given that all of the criteria of OCGA § 9-10-160 had not been satisfied). Accord Hampton v. State , 302 Ga. 166, 170 (3), 805 S.E.2d 902 (2017) (trial court did not err in denying motion for continuance based on need to procure potential defense witness, where trial counsel "did not say what evidence this witness might offer").