Stricklin & Co. v. Crow Land Development, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stricklin & Co. v. Crow Land Development, Inc.

398 S.E.2d 865, 197 Ga. App. 373, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 1315

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1990

DocketA90A1294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 398 S.E.2d 865 (Stricklin & Co. v. Crow Land Development, Inc.) 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

Stricklin & Co. v. Crow Land Development, Inc., 398 S.E.2d 865, 197 Ga. App. 373, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 1315 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Beasley, Judge.

Plaintiff Stricklin & Company, a Georgia limited partnership, appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motions for summary judgment. The suit claims the intentional interference with prospective contractual relations surrounding the sale and purchase of a sizable and valuable tract of real [374]*374property. Perry & Co. v. New South Ins. Brokers, 182 Ga. App. 84, 89-90 (4) (354 SE2d 852) (1987), sets forth the elements of the tort.

Decided October 11, 1990 Rehearing denied October 25, 1990 Devine & Morris, Foy R. Devine, for appellant. Hicks, Maloof & Campbell, Charles E. Campbell, Paul L. Hanes, Moore & Rogers, John H. Moore, William R. Johnson, for appellees.

The trial court entered an extensive order setting out the nature and history of the case, the undisputed facts, and the law applicable, as well as its legal conclusions. Considering the record and the enumerations of error urged on appeal, the judgment must be affirmed because defendants were entitled to it as a matter of law. We could not materially improve upon the trial court’s order which adequately explains its correct decision, and the judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 36 (3).

Judgments affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Beasley, Judge.

Plaintiff Stricklin & Company, a Georgia limited partnership, appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motions for summary judgment. The suit claims the intentional interference with prospective contractual relations surrounding the sale and purchase of a sizable and valuable tract of real [374]*374property. Perry & Co. v. New South Ins. Brokers, 182 Ga. App. 84, 89-90 (4) (354 SE2d 852) (1987), sets forth the elements of the tort.

Decided October 11, 1990 Rehearing denied October 25, 1990 Devine & Morris, Foy R. Devine, for appellant. Hicks, Maloof & Campbell, Charles E. Campbell, Paul L. Hanes, Moore & Rogers, John H. Moore, William R. Johnson, for appellees.

The trial court entered an extensive order setting out the nature and history of the case, the undisputed facts, and the law applicable, as well as its legal conclusions. Considering the record and the enumerations of error urged on appeal, the judgment must be affirmed because defendants were entitled to it as a matter of law. We could not materially improve upon the trial court’s order which adequately explains its correct decision, and the judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 36 (3).

Judgments affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 S.E.2d 865, 197 Ga. App. 373, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 1315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stricklin-co-v-crow-land-development-inc-gactapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack