lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
INDEPENDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRANTON.
30730.
PER CURIAM.
This court denied the applicant's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in this case on February 11, 1976. Applicant made a timely motion for reconsideration of this court's denial of its petition. We have decided, on the applicant's motion for reconsideration, to vacate this court's judgment of February 11, 1976, and we now enter a judgment granting
Ga.) JANUARY TERM, 1976. 515 the applicant's petition.
Pursuant to Rule 36 (c) of this court (effective December 1, 1975) we now grant the applicant's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case, and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reported at 136 Ga. App. 414 (221 SE2d 217) (1975). Applicant's motion for reconsideration filed in this court complains about Division 4 of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. she complaint is that the recital contained in the pleaded death certificate is a conclusion rather than a "recital of facts." Applicant's argument is that the conclusion contained in the pleaded certificate is the very issue to be determined in the case, and that such issue is a question of fact.
Applicant especially objects to the sentence: "Such resumption must be by defendant rebutted at the trial of the case," contained in Division 4 of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The argument is that if the recital contained in the pleaded certificate is a conclusion, such recital cannot raise a presumption that must be rebutted by the applicant at the trial of the case.
We deem the applicant's contention with respect to Division 4 of the opinion of the Court of Appeals to be of sufficient importance to warrant our vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanding the case to that court for further consideration and clarification of Division 4 on this one issue.
Therefore, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further consideration as stated herein.
Douglas Breault, for appellee.
Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, James E. Humes, II, Albert W. Stubbs, for appellant.
DECIDED MARCH 16, 1976.
Friday May 22 08:12 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com