Bowman v. Bowman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the need for finality justifies the imposition of res judicata; stating that the ancient maxim “It is of advantage to the public that there be an end of litigation” represents a policy “so essential as not to admit of question or dispute”
• concluding that the need for finality justifies the imposition of res judicata; stating that the ancient maxim \It is of advantage to the public that there be an end of litigation\ represents a policy \so essential as not to admit of question or dispute\
• concluding that the need for finality justifies the imposition of res judicata; stating that the ancient maxim “It is of advantage to the public that there be an end of litigation” represents a policy “so essential as not to admit of question or dispute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lops v. Lops
  Eleventh Circuit· 1998-05-07· cited 114×
• Georgia Farm Buildings, Inc. v. Willard
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1983-01-12· cited 12×
• Todd v. Dekle
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1978-02-28· cited 9×
• Wren Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Midland-Guardian Co.
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1967-11-30· cited 6×
• Hite v. Waldrop
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1973-05-31· cited 5×
• First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Gainesville National Bank
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1968-03-07· cited 2×
• Sumlin v. Jones
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1980-02-22· cited 2×
• King v. Calhoun First National Bank
  Court of Appeals of Georgia· 1975-10-21· cited 1×
• Sirmons v. Banks
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1965-05-06

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sumner v. Sumner
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1938-05-14· cited 71×
• Bowman v. Poole
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1958-02-10· cited 2×