Findley v. Findley

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that, if trial court based its attorney fee award on OCGA § 19-6-2, it was error to do so because there was no evidence of the parties’ financial circumstances that authorized such an award
• defining “full retroactivity” as “application of a newly-pronounced rule to the parties before the Court and to all others by and against whom claims may be pressed, consistent with res judicata and procedural bars” (emphasis added)
• fee award reversed where fees were sought under multiple statutory provisions and court’s order contained no information concerning basis of trial court’s award
• \[W]e shall continue to apply the general rule that a judicial decision announcing a new rule is retroactive[.]\
• “[W]e shall continue to apply the general rule that a judicial decision announcing a new rule is retroactive[.]”
• \[W]e shall continue to apply the general rule that a judicial decision announcing a new rule is retroactive[.]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).