Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. v. Thaxton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. v. Thaxton

270 S.E.2d 399, 155 Ga. App. 233, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

Docket60067

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 S.E.2d 399 (Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. v. Thaxton) 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

Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. v. Thaxton, 270 S.E.2d 399, 155 Ga. App. 233, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Chief Judge.

Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. brings this appeal following the grant of appellees’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

1. The trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss as to Thaxton. He filed an affidavit stating that he was a resident of Alabama. It is not necessary to reach this enumeration as to the other two defendants for the reasons set forth in Division 2 of this opinion.

2. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment as to McIntyre and Rainbow, Ltd. The affidavits accompanying the motion for summary judgment pierced all the issues raised in appellant’s pleadings. Appellant did not file any affidavits or other evidence in rebuttal. As appellees showed a prima facie right to summary judgment, appellant had a duty to present rebuttal evidence to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact. As Big Chief has not met this burden, the trial court had no alternative but to enter summary judgment against it. Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Rouse, 145 Ga. App. 40 (243 SE2d 300) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur. Robert J. Kaufman, for appellees.

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

Deen, Chief Judge.

Big Chief Truck Lines, Inc. brings this appeal following the grant of appellees’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

1. The trial court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss as to Thaxton. He filed an affidavit stating that he was a resident of Alabama. It is not necessary to reach this enumeration as to the other two defendants for the reasons set forth in Division 2 of this opinion.

2. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment as to McIntyre and Rainbow, Ltd. The affidavits accompanying the motion for summary judgment pierced all the issues raised in appellant’s pleadings. Appellant did not file any affidavits or other evidence in rebuttal. As appellees showed a prima facie right to summary judgment, appellant had a duty to present rebuttal evidence to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact. As Big Chief has not met this burden, the trial court had no alternative but to enter summary judgment against it. Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Rouse, 145 Ga. App. 40 (243 SE2d 300) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur. Robert J. Kaufman, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 S.E.2d 399, 155 Ga. App. 233, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/big-chief-truck-lines-inc-v-thaxton-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack