Walton v. Datry

26 Citing cases

  1. Daniel v. Stevens

    183 W. Va. 95 (W. Va. 1990)   Cited 11 times
    In Daniel, we found that because the party opposing the motion was not prejudicially surprised by the issue presented in the motion, the lack of notice was harmless.

    To conclude otherwise "would have a negative effect on written motions, for to apply [Rule 6(d)] strictly would penalize one who submitted a written motion rather than an oral one which has no time requirement." Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 91, 363 S.E.2d 295, 298 (1987), cert. denied, 185 Ga. App. 911 (Ga. Jan. 13, 1988). Walton also states:

  2. Hwang v. Jeon

    Civil Action 1:19-cv-02105-SDG (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2024)

    Shepherd v. Greer, Klosic & Daugherty, 325 Ga.App. 188, 189-90 (2013); see also Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga.App. 88, 93-94 (1987) (“The cardinal rule in the construction of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties.”)

  3. American Management Services East, LLC v. Fort Benning Family Communities, LLC

    333 Ga. App. 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times
    Applying stranger doctrine to claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty

    Legacy Academy v. JLK, Inc., 330 Ga.App. 397, 401(1), 765 S.E.2d 472 (2014). See e.g., Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga.App. 88, 93(5)(a), 363 S.E.2d 295 (1987) (where a provision of a certain numbered paragraph of a contract referenced an article of the same contract). See generally Blueshift, Inc. v. Advanced Computing Technologies, Inc., 273 Ga.App. 802, 802–805(2), 616 S.E.2d 816 (2005).

  4. Cordell v. Bank of North Georgia

    295 Ga. App. 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that "affidavits relied upon in support of a motion for summary judgment must be on file for at least 30 days prior to the hearing"

    , Howell Mill/CollierAssoc. v. Gonzales (allowing late-filed affidavits opposing summary judgment). Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 91 (2) ( 363 SE2d 295) (1987).Fairington, Inc. v. Yeargin Constr. Co., 144 Ga. App. 491, 492 (1) ( 241 SE2d 608) (1978).

  5. Michna v. Blue Cross

    288 Ga. App. 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that contract construction is a matter of law for the court

    Such contracts must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Id. Nevertheless, language which is unambiguous will not be construed as ambiguous based on extrinsic circumstances, Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 94 (5) (a) ( 363 SE2d 295) (1987), and even though ambiguous exclusions may be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly construed against the insurer, this cannot be done when the exclusion is clear and unequivocal. United Svcs. c. Assn. v. hail, 192 Ga. App. 487, 489 (1) ( 385 SE2d 424) (1989).

  6. Boynton v. State

    653 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 10 times

    The trial court properly based its ruling on the witness's anticipated testimony. Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 90-91 (2) ( 363 SE2d 295) (1987). In any event, while J. B. did not specifically testify at trial that Boynton gave her illegal drugs in exchange for sex, she did testify that he gave her drugs just before he molested her, and that the drug use "always led up to intercourse."

  7. Rice v. Cannon

    283 Ga. App. 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    It also follows that, even though the failure to notify the Rices of the hearing on their motions was error, the lack of any legal basis for the motions shows the error was harmless. Ford v. Prudential Investment Co., 174 Ga. 163, 164-165 ( 162 SE 382) (1932); Walton v. Dairy, 185 Ga. App. 88, 90-91 ( 363 SE2d 295) (1987). There is no merit to the Rices' contention that they asserted a valid appearance conflict pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule (USCR) 17, and that the trial court erroneously failed to recognize the conflict and reschedule the hearing on Cannon's dismissal motion.

  8. Lay Brothers, Inc. v. Golden Pantry Food Stores

    273 Ga. App. 870 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 23 times
    Incorporating into a lease Georgia's legal definition of "trade fixture" to determine that a store canopy was a "store fixture" and could be removed by the lessee without breach

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 95 (5) (b) ( 363 SE2d 295) (1987). (Punctuation omitted.)

  9. Lawrence v. Direct Mtg. Lenders Corp.

    254 Ga. App. 672 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Upholding punitive damages award where ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was 33.3. to 1 in case involving conversion and intentional misrepresentation and concealment

    This rule does not require that Lawrence be given 6 months in which to complete discovery. Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Development Auth. c., 257 Ga. 181, 184 ( 357 S.E.2d 62) (1987); Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 90 ( 363 S.E.2d 295) (1987). Rather, the time for conducting discovery rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

  10. Shadix v. Carroll County

    239 Ga. App. 191 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, there is no specified time within which to conduct discovery, only a limitation on the period that the trial court will enforce discovery; by trial court order, discovery can be shortened or increased. Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Dev. Auth., 257 Ga. 181, 184(5) ( 357 S.E.2d 62) (1987); Walton v. Datry, 185 Ga. App. 88, 90(1) ( 363 S.E.2d 295) (1987). A trial court has wide discretion to shorten, extend, or reopen the time for discovery, and its decision will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.