Mackel v. Sheraton Biltmore Hotel

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mackel v. Sheraton Biltmore Hotel

224 S.E.2d 100, 137 Ga. App. 444, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2478

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1976

Docket51544

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 S.E.2d 100 (Mackel v. Sheraton Biltmore Hotel) 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

Mackel v. Sheraton Biltmore Hotel, 224 S.E.2d 100, 137 Ga. App. 444, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2478 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment to defendants in a premises liability case. For reasons alluded to in Peachtree Bottle Shop v. Bessemer Securities Corp., 134 Ga. App. 729 (215 SE2d 692), it is sufficient to state upon this review that defendants have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating, under applicable summary judgment standards, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Our ruling here, however, does not necessarily mean that plaintiffs are entitled to finally prevail (Ray v. Webster, 128 Ga. App. 217 (196 SE2d 175)), nor does it fix the law of the case. Grantham Transfer Co. v. Hawes, 225 Ga. 436 (1) (169 SE2d 290); Venable v. Grage, 116 Ga. App. 340 (1) (157 SE2d 519); E. Raymond Smith, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 127 Ga. App. 571, 572 (1) (194 SE2d 339).

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment to defendants in a premises liability case. For reasons alluded to in Peachtree Bottle Shop v. Bessemer Securities Corp., 134 Ga. App. 729 (215 SE2d 692), it is sufficient to state upon this review that defendants have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating, under applicable summary judgment standards, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Our ruling here, however, does not necessarily mean that plaintiffs are entitled to finally prevail (Ray v. Webster, 128 Ga. App. 217 (196 SE2d 175)), nor does it fix the law of the case. Grantham Transfer Co. v. Hawes, 225 Ga. 436 (1) (169 SE2d 290); Venable v. Grage, 116 Ga. App. 340 (1) (157 SE2d 519); E. Raymond Smith, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 127 Ga. App. 571, 572 (1) (194 SE2d 339).

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.E.2d 100, 137 Ga. App. 444, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackel-v-sheraton-biltmore-hotel-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack