Labovitz v. Hopkinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the expert affidavit requirement for complaints alleging claims against professionals is applicable only to those professional-malpractice actions alleging professional negligence and not to intentional acts
• explaining that it is unnecessary to file an expert affidavit with a complaint asserting claims for intentional misconduct or acts against a professional, including claims for fraud and misrepresentation
• explaining that OCGA § 9-11-9.1 is limited to claims grounded in professional negligence
• claim that attorneys “committed intentional acts which caused [the claimant] harm [did] not require [an OCGA] § 9-11-9.1 expert affidavit”
• failure to file expert affidavit within limits set by OCGA § 9-11-9.1 — under 1989 amendment — does not result in an automatic adjudication on the merits of the case
• failure to file expert affidavit within limits set by OCGA § 9-11-9.1 — under 1989 amendment — does not result in an automatic adjudication on the merits of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).