Vaughn & Co. v. Saul

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming grant of summary judgment and concluding that vague statements of a belief that the terms of a note may be modified are not legally sufficient to imply a “mutual new agreement” or create an issue of fact
• affirming grant of summary judgment and concluding that vague statements of a belief that the terms of a note may be modified are not legally sufficient to imply a “mutual new agreement” or create an issue of fact
• ini which the objection to the sufficiency of an affidavit in support of a motion for summary judgment was not raised until oral argument on[ the motion
• “Historically it has been the policy of Georgia appellate courts not to interfere with the trial judge’s broad discretion granted to him under the discovery provisions of the Civil Practice Act.”
• “Historically it has been the policy of Georgia appellate courts not to interfere with the trial judge’s broad discretion granted to him under the discovery provisions of the Civil Practice Act.”
• “Historically it has been the policy of Georgia appellate courts not to interfere with the trial judge’s broad discretion granted to him under the discovery provisions of the Civil Practice Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).