Ford v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there was no equal division in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 218 Ga. App. 248 (461 SE2d 877) (1995
• noting that there was no equal division in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 218 Ga. App. 248 (461 SE2d 877) (1995
• noting that there was no equal division in Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford, 218 Ga. App. 248 (461 SE2d 877) (1995
• noting that no equal division exists where a majority of judges of the Court of Appeals find that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed upon some ground, even though the judges are equally split as to the grounds for reversal
• noting that no equal division exists where a majority of judges of the Court of Appeals find that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed upon some ground, even though the judges are equally split as to the grounds for reversal
• “That ruling [by the Court of Appeals] was not disturbed by this Court. . . and thus remains the law of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).