The lawsuit against Six Flags Over Georgia that led to a $35 million verdict—reversed by the Georgia Court of Appeals and reinstated by the Georgia Supreme Court with directions to re-figure the apportionment of fault—has quietly concluded, lawyers on both sides confirmed Wednesday.

“It's settled. That's all I can tell you,” Six Flags' appellate counsel Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight said Wednesday when asked about the status of the case.

“The case is resolved. It's over. We don't have to retry it,” plaintiffs trial lawyer Michael Neff of the Law Office of Michael Neff said Wednesday in answer to the same question.

The agreement ends a dispute that started soon after Joshua Martin, then 19, was attacked outside of Six Flags on the evening of July 3, 2007, while he was waiting for a bus to take him home.

Witnesses at the 2013 trial said the violent mob included gang members who were Six Flags employees. They targeted Martin in the park for no apparent reason—following him out after closing, then hitting, kicking and beating him. One witness said a gang member used brass knuckles he had hidden in a Six Flags flowerbed he had been tending while on duty. Martin was so severely injured that he was in a hospital for months and left permanently paralyzed and brain-damaged.

The jury deliberated for parts of two days before returning a $35 million verdict placing 92 percent of the blame on Six Flags and the rest on the attackers. The Six Flags tab was $32 million. Cobb County State Court Judge Kathryn Tanksley, who has since retired, denied a motion for a new trial.

Daniel, chair of Holland & Knight's national appellate team and leader of the firm's Atlanta litigation practice, won a reversal before the state Court of Appeals, which said more unidentified attackers should have been considered for apportionment and so the case must be retried.

But last June, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the reversal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Britt Grant, the high court held that it was not necessary to retry the entire case to correct an apportionment error. Instead, the justices concluded that the trial court could simply retry the damages apportionment portion of the case.

What wasn't known at the time was that the lawyers for both sides had worked out a confidential agreement to settle for a still-undisclosed amount, if the Supreme Court upheld the verdict, according to Neff, who handled the case with a team of lawyers from his firm and others.

Neff recalled getting a phone call while on vacation from his appellate counsel, Michael Terry of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, with the news of the Supreme Court's decision. “More happy phone calls ensued,” he said. He was able to tell Martin's family that the ordeal was over and that they would be compensated to provide for his care.

Neff said he looked up the dates when the money arrived and realized he had been working on the case for 10 years, two months and one day. After all the details were settled, he moved for dismissal in the trial court.

“It's more than half a career,” said Neff, who graduated from Penn State's Dickinson Law School in 1993 and practiced in New Jersey for two years before moving to Atlanta. “It will be a case I look back on always.”