PARKER PLUMBING & HEATING COMPANY v. Kurtz
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Imperiale v. Pollard (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
- Webb v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
- Lindsey v. Samoluk (Ga. 1976)
- Southeast Transport Corp. v. Hogan Livestock Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
- Lindsey v. Samoluk (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Keelin (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
- Kelley v. BLUE LINE CARRIERS, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)
- Hoeflick v. Bradley (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)
- Rabun & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Berry (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. J. I. Case Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
- Dover Place Apartments v. a & M Plumbing & Heating Co. (Ga. 1985)
- Dover Place Apartments v. A & M Plumbing & Heating Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
- Bowen v. Waters (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Clark (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
- Baldwin v. Uniroyal, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
- James v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
- Jet America, Inc. v. Gates Learjet Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)
- Harrell v. Carlton (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
- Stallings v. Chance (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
- General Insurance Co. of America v. Bowers (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
- City of Claxton v. Claxton Poultry Company, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
- Childers v. Eastern Foam Products, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1982)
- Kurtz v. Parker Plumbing & Heating Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Certiorari was granted to the Court of Appeals in the present case to correct the holding that the agreement executed by the insured and set out in detail in the opinion of the Court of Appeals (Kurtz v. Parker Plumbing & Heating Co., 118 Ga. App. 130 (162 SE2d 755)), was not an assignment of the cause of action.
The agreement which embodied more than a mere assignment of the cause of action was still an assignment of such cause of action, and the assignee must bring the action in its name. See Sullivan v. Curling, 140 Ga. 96, 101 (99 SE 533, 5 ALR 124). Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the grant of the summary judgment for the defendant where the undisputed proof showed that the plaintiff no longer had any interest in the cause of action.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.