Jones v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Clark

357 S.E.2d 285, 182 Ga. App. 871, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1839

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 4, 1987

Docket74169

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 357 S.E.2d 285 (Jones v. Clark) 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

Jones v. Clark, 357 S.E.2d 285, 182 Ga. App. 871, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1839 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff filed a pro se action, alleging that appelleedefendants had committed acts of medical malpractice and had also wrongfully caused her involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. Appellees answered, denying the material allegations of appellant’s complaint. Appellees subsequently moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with evidence demonstrating that, as a matter of law, they were entitled to a judgment in their favor as to appellant’s claims. See generally Williams v. Smith, 179 Ga. App. 712 (348 SE2d 50) (1986). In opposition, appellant submitted nothing which would show the existence of a genuine issue of any material facts relevant to her claims. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellees’ motion and granted summary judgment in their favor. Appellant appeals.

Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Having reviewed the evidence of record in this case, we hold that appellees met their evidentiary burden and that the trial court correctly granted their motion for summary judgment. See generally Williams v. Smith, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff filed a pro se action, alleging that appelleedefendants had committed acts of medical malpractice and had also wrongfully caused her involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. Appellees answered, denying the material allegations of appellant’s complaint. Appellees subsequently moved for summary judgment, supporting their motion with evidence demonstrating that, as a matter of law, they were entitled to a judgment in their favor as to appellant’s claims. See generally Williams v. Smith, 179 Ga. App. 712 (348 SE2d 50) (1986). In opposition, appellant submitted nothing which would show the existence of a genuine issue of any material facts relevant to her claims. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellees’ motion and granted summary judgment in their favor. Appellant appeals.

Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .” OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). Having reviewed the evidence of record in this case, we hold that appellees met their evidentiary burden and that the trial court correctly granted their motion for summary judgment. See generally Williams v. Smith, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 S.E.2d 285, 182 Ga. App. 871, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-clark-gactapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack