Elliott v. McDaniel

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Elliott v. McDaniel

510 S.E.2d 46, 235 Ga. App. 773, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 70, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1488

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

DocketA96A1737

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 S.E.2d 46 (Elliott v. McDaniel) 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

Elliott v. McDaniel, 510 S.E.2d 46, 235 Ga. App. 773, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 70, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1488 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Blackburn, Judge.

In Elliott v. McDaniel, 224 Ga. App. 848 (5) (483 SE2d 104) (1996), this Court imposed the punitive damages cap of OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (g) on the basis that the jury did not make a separate finding that the Elliotts acted wdth specific intent to cause McDaniel harm in this action for fraud and misrepresentation. In McDaniel v. Elliott, 269 Ga. 262 (497 SE2d 786) (1998), the Supreme Court reversed this Court’s holding in that case, and held that the jury necessarily found specific intent to harm as an essential element of McDaniel’s intentional fraud claim. The Court then, however, provided that consistent with our holding, a separate, specific finding of intent to cause harm and a charge thereon would be required in all future cases, but not this one. Accordingly, to the extent that this decision of the Supreme Court reverses the opinion of this Court, our original judgment in this case is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court.

Judgment reversed.

Beasley, J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur.

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

Blackburn, Judge.

In Elliott v. McDaniel, 224 Ga. App. 848 (5) (483 SE2d 104) (1996), this Court imposed the punitive damages cap of OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (g) on the basis that the jury did not make a separate finding that the Elliotts acted wdth specific intent to cause McDaniel harm in this action for fraud and misrepresentation. In McDaniel v. Elliott, 269 Ga. 262 (497 SE2d 786) (1998), the Supreme Court reversed this Court’s holding in that case, and held that the jury necessarily found specific intent to harm as an essential element of McDaniel’s intentional fraud claim. The Court then, however, provided that consistent with our holding, a separate, specific finding of intent to cause harm and a charge thereon would be required in all future cases, but not this one. Accordingly, to the extent that this decision of the Supreme Court reverses the opinion of this Court, our original judgment in this case is vacated, and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court.

Judgment reversed.

Beasley, J., and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.E.2d 46, 235 Ga. App. 773, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 70, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 1488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-mcdaniel-gactapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack