Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel and Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 37355,37355 |
| Citation | 247 Ga. 631,278 S.E.2d 377 |
| Parties | PORTER COATINGS v. STEIN STEEL AND SUPPLY COMPANY, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Richard T. de Mayo, Atlanta, for Porter Coatings.
Robert D. Marshall, Curtis W. Martin, Atlanta, for Stein Steel and Supply Co. et al.
This is a certiorari to the Court of Appeals. 1 It was granted for two reasons. First to determine, "Whether there should be a different rule as to the filing deadlines for materials supporting and opposing motions for summary judgment with respect to depositions and other materials of which the opposite party had notice or knowledge, than as to affidavits and other materials of which the opposite party had no notice or knowledge." Second, "The validity of Division 1 of Benton Bros. Ford Co. Inc. v. Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co., --- Ga.App. ---, 278 S.E.2d 40 (1981) in light of the above issue."
Code Ann. § 81A-156(c) provides,
A motion for summary judgment is a vehicle for disposing of a controversy without the necessity of a trial. It is, as the description shows, a summary disposition of the issues in order to efficiently resolve litigation. Nevertheless, due process requires that the respondent not be surprised; rather, that he be given reasonable opportunity to refute the movant's showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Therefore, the procedure is designed to give the opposing party fair opportunity to contradict the supporting material relied upon by the movant. Accordingly, we conclude that Code Ann. § 81A-156(c) requires that only supporting material which is "on file" at least 30 days before the hearing shall be considered for the movant. The intention of the statute may appear rigid at first blush but Code Ann. § 81A-106(b) and § 81A-106(d) provide flexibility by authorizing the trial judge, or the parties by stipulation, to extend the filing times. We approve the holding in division 1 of Benton Bros. Ford Co., Inc. v. Cotton States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Outfront Media, LLC v. City of Sandy Springs
...220 (1), 290 S.E.2d 157 (1982). Harmless error analysis also can be applied in this context. See Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co. , 247 Ga. 631, 632 (3), 278 S.E.2d 377 (1981) (requirement that summary judgment movant file supporting materials at least 30 days before hearing "doe......
-
Baker v. Brannen/Goddard Co.
...material which is `on file' at least 30 days before the hearing shall be considered for the movant." Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 247 Ga. 631, 632, 278 S.E.2d 377 (1981). Since the purpose of the hearing is not the reception of evidence, the transcript is not usually necessa......
-
Atlantic Sea-Con, Ltd. v. Robert Dann Co.
...Metz Lumber Co., 715 P.2d 329 (Colo.1986); Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 157 Ga.App. 260, 277 S.E.2d 272, aff'd. 247 Ga. 631, 278 S.E.2d 377 (1981); City of Evansville v. Verplank Concrete, 400 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.App.1980); Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. & Co. Inc. v. Kinler, 336 So.2d ......
-
Anderson Chemical Co. v. Portals Water Treatment, Inc.
...their usual significance.'" Porter Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co., 157 Ga.App. 260, 262, 277 S.E.2d 272, 274, aff'd, 247 Ga. 631, 278 S.E.2d 377 (1981). The writing of November 9, 1987, is clear and unambiguous. It must therefore be construed to mean what it says, affording the plain ......