Rutherford v. Ayers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rutherford v. Ayers

254 S.E.2d 158, 149 Ga. App. 190, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1782

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 1, 1979·No. 57058·Published

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Appellants contend the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment was erroneous because the evidence adduced below presented material issues of fact for submission to the jury. However, in his brief appellants’ attorney does not cite any specific portion of the record in support of the claim of error, and, because of this failure to carry the appellate burden, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 18 of Court of Appeals (Code Ann. § 24-3618); Rambo v. Fulton Financial Corp., 145 Ga. App. 791 (245 SE2d 12) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Appellants contend the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment was erroneous because the evidence adduced below presented material issues of fact for submission to the jury. However, in his brief appellants’ attorney does not cite any specific portion of the record in support of the claim of error, and, because of this failure to carry the appellate burden, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 18 of Court of Appeals (Code Ann. § 24-3618); Rambo v. Fulton Financial Corp., 145 Ga. App. 791 (245 SE2d 12) (1978).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Rutherford v. Ayers, 254 S.E.2d 158, 149 Ga. App. 190, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1782 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

254 S.E.2d 158 (Rutherford v. Ayers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related