Cherry v. Hersch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Final Judgment” order that did not recite exact language of O.C.G.A. § 9-ll-54(b) made express provision and showed by its language a clear intent that the order be final and, therefore, appealable as to two of the four defendants
• final judgment order which did not recite the exact language of OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) nonetheless expressed a clear intent by the trial judge that the order be final, and therefore appealable, as to two of four defendants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).