Groomes v. Whitner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Groomes v. Whitner

241 S.E.2d 604, 144 Ga. App. 530, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1667

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 5, 1978

Docket54658

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.E.2d 604 (Groomes v. Whitner) 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

Groomes v. Whitner, 241 S.E.2d 604, 144 Ga. App. 530, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1667 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellant initiated this action pro se by filing a document in superior court entitled "Malpractice Suit” and causing it to be served on the appellees, each of whom is apparently a dentist. In the document he alleged that the appellees injured one of his teeth and the surrounding tissue. However, he did not allege any negligence on their part, nor did he describe how the injuries occurred, nor did he include a demand for relief.

The appellees each filed motions for more definite statement, which were granted. Although the appellant filed further papers in response to the order granting the motions, he again failed to specify either the basis for his claim or the relief which he sought. The trial court thereupon entered an order dismissing the complaint.

Code Ann. § 81A-112 (e) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 624) provides for the filing of a motion for more definite statement in response to a pleading which is " so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a proper responsive pleading...” It also permits the trial court to strike the pleading to which the motion is directed upon failure to comply with an order granting the motion. The pleadings filed by the appellant in this case do not state a claim for relief. The order requiring a more definite statement and the subsequent order of dismissal were accordingly authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur. Charles J. Groomes, pro se. Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, for appellees.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellant initiated this action pro se by filing a document in superior court entitled "Malpractice Suit” and causing it to be served on the appellees, each of whom is apparently a dentist. In the document he alleged that the appellees injured one of his teeth and the surrounding tissue. However, he did not allege any negligence on their part, nor did he describe how the injuries occurred, nor did he include a demand for relief.

The appellees each filed motions for more definite statement, which were granted. Although the appellant filed further papers in response to the order granting the motions, he again failed to specify either the basis for his claim or the relief which he sought. The trial court thereupon entered an order dismissing the complaint.

Code Ann. § 81A-112 (e) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 624) provides for the filing of a motion for more definite statement in response to a pleading which is " so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a proper responsive pleading...” It also permits the trial court to strike the pleading to which the motion is directed upon failure to comply with an order granting the motion. The pleadings filed by the appellant in this case do not state a claim for relief. The order requiring a more definite statement and the subsequent order of dismissal were accordingly authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur. Charles J. Groomes, pro se. Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Palmer H. Ansley, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.E.2d 604, 144 Ga. App. 530, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 1667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groomes-v-whitner-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack