Ballenger v. Floyd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that our Supreme Court rejected the “substantial compliance rule” in matters involving service of process and that service must be made as provided by the Code section
• “[The] proof must be not only clear and convincing, but the strongest of which the nature of the case will admit.” (punctuation omitted)
• “[The defendant] raised the defense of insufficient service in his answer and [the plaintiff] was on notice that service had not been perfected.”
• “[Defendant’s] answer asserting insufficiency of service put [plaintiff] on notice and she was then required to exercise the greatest possible diligence to ensure proper and timely service.”
• affidavits from a mother and son were sufficient to prove that the mother was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the son and that the son did not live with the mother

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).