Yates v. Carlisle

4 Citing cases

  1. Ellison v. Hill

    288 Ga. App. 415 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 15 times

    The Ellisons have cited no authority, and we have found none, for the proposition that determination of profits of a business requires the expert testimony of certified public accountants in accordance with GAAP. It is well settled that the weight and credibility of opinion testimony, even expert testimony, is a matter for determination by the finder of fact. See Yates v. Carlisle, 171 Ga. App. 206, 207 ( 319 SE2d 71) (1984) ("[w]here the plaintiff in a professional malpractice case would be required to introduce expert opinion evidence in order to prevail at trial, and the defendant produces contrary expert opinion on motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce expert opinion in support of his claim. Otherwise, no issue remains for jury resolution, and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment") (citations omitted); accord Howard v. Walker, 242 Ga. 406, 408 ( 249 SE2d 45) (1978) (legal malpractice).

  2. Taylor v. Spence

    390 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)

    The sworn testimony of the defendant in a legal malpractice action to the effect that his representation of the plaintiff complied with the applicable standards of professional conduct, if not controverted by expert testimony to the contrary, will authorize the grant of summary judgment in his favor. See Thomas v. Carlisle, 179 Ga. App. 315, 316 ( 346 S.E.2d 79) (1986); Yates v. Carlisle, 171 Ga. App. 206 ( 319 S.E.2d 71) (1984); Graves v. Jones, 184 Ga. App. 128, 129 ( 361 S.E.2d 19) (1987). It follows that the trial court did not err in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this case.

  3. Thomas v. Carlisle

    179 Ga. App. 315 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times

    Such an affidavit by a defendant in a legal malpractice action, if not contradicted by expert testimony, will authorize summary judgment for the defendant attorney. Since appellant offered in opposition only his own affidavit, which was largely conclusory in nature, appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Yates v. Carlisle, 171 Ga. App. 206 ( 319 S.E.2d 71) (1984). Judgment affirmed.

  4. HH&L Elec., Inc. v. Hebbard Elec., Inc.

    808 S.E.2d 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)

    (Footnotes and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 416-417 (1), 654 S.E.2d 158, citing Ginn v. Morgan, 225 Ga. 192, 193-194, 167 S.E.2d 393 (1969) ; Barrington Hills Condo. Assn. v. Lewis, 277 Ga.App. 510, 511-512, 627 S.E.2d 114 (2006) ; Yates v. Carlisle, 171 Ga.App. 206, 207, 319 S.E.2d 71 (1984).In this case, numerous questions of fact exist as to what the parties had agreed to be deducted prior to calculating the amount of profits, and any calculations made by Evans, regardless of whether they were generally accepted in the accounting community, are simply his opinion and not sufficient to sustain a legal conclusion without a finding of fact. Hasan had personal knowledge of the contract and can address any ambiguities by testifying to what he understood to be the agreement between the parties, what he understood would be deducted prior to a disbursement of "profits," and whether HH&L had agreed to any such deductions.