Carr v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment was not premature when entered prior to conclusion of discovery
• holding that “[t]he trial court was not required to allow the completion of discovery before ruling on the motion for summary judgment” and that “if [the] [nonmovants] needed additional discovery for their response to [the] motion, they should have invoked OCGA § 9-11-56 (f).”
• “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable,to the nonmovant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).