MOM CORP. v. Chattahoochee Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[o]n a reversal of summary judgment, a case is remanded in the posture existing prior to summary judgment”
• holding that “the mere failure of the appellate court expressly to direct a ‘remand’ ” does not preclude the court below from proceeding with the case on remand
• holding that “following appellate review of summary-judgment, ‘the law of the case’ rule does not limit or prohibit the trial court from receiving new evidence which changes the eviden-tiary posture of the case”
• explaining that “although the appellate court may choose to remand with express direction, this is generally for purposes of clarity”
• holding interest on loan was not usurious per se, but also noting language of OCGA § 7-4-2 (a) (1) (B)
• finding that failure of appellate court upon reversal of summary judgment to expressly direct taking of new evidence did not prohibit lower court from receiving additional evidence on remand

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).