Wilson v. Wilson, 612 S.E.2d 797 (Ga. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilson v. Wilson, 612 S.E.2d 797 (Ga. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in the absence of more specific direction by this court, our reversal of the judgment of the spalding county judgment was the grant of a de novo trial on all issues contained within the judgment.”
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carolyn Allen Doxey v. Mark D. Crissey (gactapp, 2021-06-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Carolyn Allen Doxey v. Mark D. Crissey (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
in the absence of more specific direction by this court, our reversal of the judgment of the spalding county judgment was the grant of a de novo trial on all issues contained within the judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jackson
Ga. · 2014 · confidence medium
Likewise, the trial court incorrectly relied upon and misapplied the following language from this Court’s opinion in Wilson v. Wilson, 279 Ga. 302, 303 ( 612 SE2d 797 ) (2005): “As a general rule, where there is a judgment of reversal but no express direction of this Court to the lower court, the case stands as reversed, and a new trial must he had on the issues therein raised.” In Wilson , a divorce case, this Court ruled that its previous opinion holding that the Superior Court of Spalding County committed reversible error in refusing to allow wife’s counsel to make a closing argumen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Strickland & Smith, Inc. v. Williamson
Ga. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Malcolm F. Bryant, Jr., for appellees. 1 263 Ga. App. 431, 434-435 (2) ( 587 SE2d 876 ) (2003). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Wilson v. Wilson, 279 Ga. 302, 303 ( 612 SE2d 797 ) (2005). 5 Franklyn Gesner Fine Paintings v. Ketcham, 259 Ga. 3, 4 (6) (a) ( 375 SE2d 848 ) (1989). 6 See OCGA § 5-5-48 (“When a new trial has been granted by the court, the case shall be placed on the docket for trial as though no trial had been had____”); Bankhead v. State, 253 Ga. App. 214, 215 (1) ( 558 SE2d 407 ) (2001) (“The effect of the grant of a new trial by an appellate court is to require the case to be heard de novo…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
WILSON
v.
WILSON
S05A0555.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 9, 2005.
612 S.E.2d 797
Jan V. Hinson, for appellant., J. Stephen Clifford, David A. Webster, for appellee.
Hunstein.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 70%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Georgia (1)
HUNSTEIN, Justice.

This marks the second appearance of this case in our Court. See Wilson v. Wlson, 277 Ga. 801 (596 SE2d 392) (2004). While that appeal from a Spalding County order was pending, appellant Brenda Wilson filed an action to modify custody in Fulton County, which was appellee E.D. Wilson’s new county of residence, and appellee counterclaimed. Both parties discussed the effect of the pending appeal during their first appearance in Fulton Superior Court. The Fulton County trial court determined that the custody modification hearing could continue because appellant sought to reverse only financial elements of the initial judgment. Prior to any decision by the Fulton Superior Court on the motion to modify custody, however, we reversed the Spalding County judgment on the ground that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to allow appellant’s counsel to make a closing argument. Id. After the filing of the remittitur, Spalding County reinstated the divorce case.

Post-reversal, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the Fulton County action claiming that total reversal in the first appeal returned[*303] jurisdiction to the Spalding Superior Court and left no final judgment for modification by the Fulton Superior Court. The Fulton Superior Court ruled that it retained jurisdiction to modify matters not specifically enumerated in the original appeal. Appellant thereafter filed an application for interlocutory appeal which we granted to determine whether the Fulton Superior Court erred in refusing to dismiss the modification petition after reversal of the final judgment of the Spalding Superior Court.

Decided May 9, 2005. Jan V. Hinson, for appellant. J. Stephen Clifford, David A. Webster, for appellee.

As a general rule, where there is a judgment of reversal but no express direction of this Court to the lower court, the case stands as reversed, and a new trial must be had on the issues therein raised. Rawdin v. Conner, 211 Ga. 52 (84 SE2d 50) (1954); American Associated Cos. v. Vaughan, 210 Ga. 141 (2) (78 SE2d 43) (1953); Schley v. Schofield & Son, 61 Ga. 528, 530 (1878). See OCGA § 5-5-49. In the absence of more specific direction by this Court, our reversal of the Spalding County judgment was the grant of a de novo trial on all issues contained within the judgment. Because in this case the trial court’s refusal to allow closing argument denied appellant her rights as to all issues being tried before the Spalding Superior Court, the Spalding County judgment was vacated and it was error for the Fulton Superior Court to refuse to dismiss the modification action.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Fletcher, C. J., who concurs in the judgment only.