Cale v. Cale

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cale v. Cale

282 S.E.2d 223, 158 Ga. App. 659, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2332

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 27, 1981

Docket61643

StatusPublished

This text of 282 S.E.2d 223 (Cale v. Cale) 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

Cale v. Cale, 282 S.E.2d 223, 158 Ga. App. 659, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2332 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

The trial court correctly ruled in this case that the plaintiff, appellant Cale, had stated no cause of action for which relief might be granted. Even assuming it had been error to fail to require that the proceedings below be recorded, the appellant shows no cause for complaint as he suggests nothing that occurred to obviate the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on appellee’s motion to dismiss, and therefore appellant has not shown that he has been harmed by any failure to record.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 36 of this court.

Shulman, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Judge.

The trial court correctly ruled in this case that the plaintiff, appellant Cale, had stated no cause of action for which relief might be granted. Even assuming it had been error to fail to require that the proceedings below be recorded, the appellant shows no cause for complaint as he suggests nothing that occurred to obviate the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on appellee’s motion to dismiss, and therefore appellant has not shown that he has been harmed by any failure to record.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 36 of this court.

Shulman, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.E.2d 223, 158 Ga. App. 659, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 2332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cale-v-cale-gactapp-1981.