Acker v. Veal, s. 74839
| Decision Date | 15 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 74839,74840,s. 74839 |
| Citation | 359 S.E.2d 7,183 Ga.App. 297 |
| Parties | ACKER v. VEAL et al. ACKER v. CRYDER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Harold N. Acker, pro se.
Curtis Veal, pro se.
Sam McIntosh, pro se.
Jerry L. Cryder, pro se.
This case previously appeared as Acker v. City of Elberton, 176 Ga.App. 580, 336 S.E.2d 842 (1985), wherein this court found that the court below correctly granted the city's motion to dismiss, but that an issue as to appellee McIntosh existed as to whether the statute of limitations had been tolled when Acker was incarcerated following his commitment as mentally incompetent. Acker dismissed his lawsuit on December 11, 1985, by mailing a dismissal notice from Central State Hospital and now claims that the six-month period in which to renew it after dismissal under OCGA § 9-2-61 has not expired because this time limitation did not begin to run until September 27, 1986, when the state found him competent to stand trial. The defendant Jerry L. Cryder was not a party to the original lawsuit. The two petitions in the instant case (one against Veal and McIntosh and the other against Cryder) were forwarded to the court prior to filing pursuant to the provisions of OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), and the court held that a review of the pleadings "show on their face a complete absence of a justiciable issue of law or fact and it cannot be reasonably believed that the court nor a jury could grant relief against any party named in the pleadings" and directed that the Clerk of Court of Elbert County not file either of the petitions. Held:
In the petitions, Acker alleges that he was injured by the defendants under the provisions of OCGA §§ 51-7-1; 51-1-13; and 51-7-20 and sets forth a factual statement in support of these contentions. We find that the petitions were therefore more than sufficient to set forth a cause of action under OCGA § 9-11-8, as it is only necessary that the defendants be placed on notice of the claim against them. Walton v. James & Dean, Inc., 177 Ga.App. 77, 338 S.E.2d 516 (1985).
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp.
...the defendant on notice of the claim against him." See Walton v. James & Dean, Inc., 177 Ga.App. 77(1), 338 S.E.2d 516; Acker v. Veal, 183 Ga.App. 297, 359 S.E.2d 7. We find that appellants' pleadings were not sufficient to place appellee on notice of any claim grounded on waiver of holder ......
-
Evans v. City of Atlanta
...he is entitled to file his action against the law enforcement officers and their respective governmental employers. See Acker v. Veal, 183 Ga.App. 297, 359 S.E.2d 7. Compare Hogan v. Peters, 181 Ga.App. 670, 353 S.E.2d 601. This case is remanded to the trial court with direction that its pr......
-
Barber v. Collins
...claim as defined in OCGA § 9-11-8 has been set forth. If so, the trial court must permit the filing of the claim. See Acker v. Veal, 183 Ga.App. 297, 359 S.E.2d 7 (1987); Evans v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga.App. 566, 377 S.E.2d 31 (1988). This does not mean that the test for determining whethe......
-
Morgan v. Rentals
...at 567, 377 S.E.2d 31 (liberal reading of complaint reveals potential civil rights action under 42 USCA § 1983); Acker v. Veal, 183 Ga.App. 297, 359 S.E.2d 7 (1987) (reversing superior court's order directing clerk not to file complaint sufficient under OCGA § 9–11–8 to place defendants on ......