---
title: EASON v. LUNDY
collection: opinions
id: S22A0533
cite_as: EASON v. LUNDY, S22A0533 (Ga. Mar. 8, 2022)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0533
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0533.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0533/text
source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448917/eason-v-lundy/
date: 2022-03-08
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2022.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S21A1261.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S21A1036.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 686
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0533.md?full=1
docket: S22A0533
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: other
authoring_justice: Per Curiam
disposition: Affirmed without opinion
vote: All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating
word_count: 46
date_filed_source: courtlistener
record_source: courtlistener
legal_areas:
  - civil procedure
upstream_id: "6448917"
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# EASON v. LUNDY

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S22A0533, filed 2022-03-08.

## Opinion

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: March 8, 2022

S22A0533. EASON et al. v. LUNDY.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a lower court's judgment in a case between Eason and Lundy without writing a full opinion, using a court rule that allows summary affirmance.

### Plain-language summary

This case involved a dispute between parties identified as Eason and others on one side and Lundy on the other. The opinion text does not describe the underlying facts or legal issues that led to the appeal.
The Supreme Court of Georgia used Supreme Court Rule 59, which lets the court affirm a lower court's decision without writing a detailed explanation when the court determines a full opinion is not needed. The court affirmed the judgment below, meaning the lower court's ruling stands, without explaining its reasoning in this order.

### Holding, as summarized

The court held that the lower court's judgment should stand, affirming it under Supreme Court Rule 59, which permits affirmance without a written opinion when the court concludes one is not warranted.

### Disposition

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.

### Why it matters

Summary affirmances like this one resolve appeals quickly but leave no written reasoning for lawyers, litigants, or the public to review, which limits its usefulness as guidance for future similar cases in Georgia courts.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (686 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S22A0533.md?full=1