Ballard v. Meyers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ballard v. Meyers

585 S.E.2d 740, 262 Ga. App. 442, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 952

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 17, 2003

DocketA01A1249

StatusPublished

This text of 585 S.E.2d 740 (Ballard v. Meyers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. Meyers, 585 S.E.2d 740, 262 Ga. App. 442, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 952 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnes, Judge.

In Ballard v. Meyers, 275 Ga. 819 (572 SE2d 572) (2002), the Supreme Court reversed that portion of our unpublished opinion in Ballard v. Meyers, 250 Ga. App. XXV (2001), which held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach the plaintiffs with documents not listed in the pretrial order. It found that the pretrial disclosure requirement does not extend to documents “upon which a party may possibly rely defensively for impeachment purposes,” but only to those “documents that a litigant intends to rely upon affirmatively to meet the burden of proving his or her case.” Ballard v. Meyers, 275 Ga. at 822. Therefore, we vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. Direction is given to the trial court consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia that this case be remanded for retrial.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Smith, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnes, Judge.

In Ballard v. Meyers, 275 Ga. 819 (572 SE2d 572) (2002), the Supreme Court reversed that portion of our unpublished opinion in Ballard v. Meyers, 250 Ga. App. XXV (2001), which held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach the plaintiffs with documents not listed in the pretrial order. It found that the pretrial disclosure requirement does not extend to documents “upon which a party may possibly rely defensively for impeachment purposes,” but only to those “documents that a litigant intends to rely upon affirmatively to meet the burden of proving his or her case.” Ballard v. Meyers, 275 Ga. at 822. Therefore, we vacate Division 1 of our earlier opinion and adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. Direction is given to the trial court consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia that this case be remanded for retrial.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

Smith, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 S.E.2d 740, 262 Ga. App. 442, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-meyers-gactapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack