Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner

Docket NumberS13G1723
Decision Date11 July 2014

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
24 cases
  • Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Bowden
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 2018
    ...steps in turn, and we look to decisions of the federal courts in interpreting OCGA § 9-11-23. Georgia–Pacific Consumer Products v. Ratner , 295 Ga. 524, 525 (1) n. 3, 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014).(a) Numerosity TMC argues that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the numerosity requirement because the numbe......
  • Sentinel Offender Svcs., LLC v. Glover
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2014
    ...issues. “Whether to certify a class is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Georgia–Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, 295 Ga. 524, 526, 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014). On appellate review, this Court will respect the discretion of the trial judge in certifying or refusing......
  • Premier Paving GP, Inc. v. IOU Cent., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 2020
    ...court which would otherwise have jurisdiction over the appeal from a final order in the action."2 Ga.-Pac. Cons. Prods., LP v. Ratner , 295 Ga. 524, 526 (1), 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014) (citation omitted); see Glynn Cty. v. Coleman , 334 Ga. App. 559, 559, 779 S.E.2d 753 (2015) ("[O]n appellate r......
  • Bowden v. Medical Center, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2020
    ...in the limited circumstances described in OCGA § 9-11-23." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner , 295 Ga. 524, 525 (1), 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014). Thus, while the decision to certify a class is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial cour......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Trial Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 67-1, September 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...S.E.2d at 656.37. Id.38. 331 Ga. App. 463, 771 S.E.2d 148 (2015).39. Id. at 467, 771 S.E.2d at 152.40. Id. at 468, 771 S.E.2d at 153.41. 295 Ga. 524, 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014). 42. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-23(a) (2015).43. 295 Ga. at 528, 763 S.E.2d at 423.44. Id. at 524, 762 S.E.2d at 420.45. Id. at 52......
  • The Great Escape: How One Plaintiffs Sidestep of a Mandatory Arbitration Clause Was Applied to a Class in Bickerstaff v. Suntrust Bank
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 68-2, January 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...788 S.E.2d at 790-91. For a more detailed analysis of the operation of § 9-11-23, see Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, 295 Ga. 524, 762 S.E.2d 419 (2014). 13. Bickerstaff, 299 Ga. at 462, 788 S.E.2d at 790-91.14. Id. at 461, 788 S.E.2d at 790.15. See O.C.G.A § 9-11-23.16. FE......