Tante v. Herring

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tante v. Herring

451 S.E.2d 130, 215 Ga. App. 797, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 14, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1388

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 7, 1994

DocketA93A1166

StatusPublished

This text of 451 S.E.2d 130 (Tante v. Herring) 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

Tante v. Herring, 451 S.E.2d 130, 215 Ga. App. 797, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 14, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1388 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

In Tante v. Herring, 264 Ga. 694 (453 SE2d 686) (1994), the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of this court in Tante v. Herring, 211 Ga. App. 322 (439 SE2d 5). Therefore, our judgment in this appeal is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. Accordingly, that part of the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment on the Herrings’ claims for legal malpractice and breach of contract is reversed, but that part of the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to the Herrings on their claim for breach of fiduciary duty is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court so that the Herrings may pursue their claim for damages resulting from Tante’s breach of his fiduciary duty.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Pope, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

In Tante v. Herring, 264 Ga. 694 (453 SE2d 686) (1994), the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of this court in Tante v. Herring, 211 Ga. App. 322 (439 SE2d 5). Therefore, our judgment in this appeal is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. Accordingly, that part of the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment on the Herrings’ claims for legal malpractice and breach of contract is reversed, but that part of the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to the Herrings on their claim for breach of fiduciary duty is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court so that the Herrings may pursue their claim for damages resulting from Tante’s breach of his fiduciary duty.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Pope, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 S.E.2d 130, 215 Ga. App. 797, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 14, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 1388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tante-v-herring-gactapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack