Rice v. Higginbotham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rice v. Higginbotham

521 S.E.2d 838, 240 Ga. App. 214, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3199, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1116

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 25, 1999

DocketA98A1986

StatusPublished

This text of 521 S.E.2d 838 (Rice v. Higginbotham) 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

Rice v. Higginbotham, 521 S.E.2d 838, 240 Ga. App. 214, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3199, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 1116 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Andrews, Presiding Judge.

In Rice v. Higginbotham, 235 Ga. App. 378 (508 SE2d 736) (1998), we concluded that Rice’s caveat was timely and reversed the judgment of the probate court striking the caveat as untimely. In so ruling, we concluded it was unnecessary to address remaining enumerations of error raised by Rice. Id. at 381. In Higginbotham v. Rice, 271 Ga. 262 (517 SE2d 784) (1999), the Supreme Court concluded the caveat was untimely and reversed the judgment of this Court.

On remittitur from the Supreme Court, we conclude that Rice’s remaining enumerations of error were either decided adversely to Rice by the decision of the Supreme Court or are without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and the probate court’s judgment striking Rice’s caveat is affirmed.

[215]*215Decided August 25, 1999 Reconsideration denied September 30, 1999 Stephen F. Carley, for appellant. Zweifel Law Firm, Gary D. Zweifel, Monica K. Gilroy, Moore, Ingram, Johnson & Steele, Robert D. Ingram, Melissa W. Gilbert, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Ruffin and Ellington, JJ, concur.

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