Court of Appeals of Georgia· 7/13/1977

Vaughn & Co. v. Saul

Citations

237 S.E.2d 622
143 Ga. App. 74
1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2193

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).

Judges: Webb, Deen, Marshall

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.