Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Grp., Inc., 441 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Grp., Inc., 441 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
76 citation events (76 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Maurice Earket v. U.S Bank Trust, N.A., as Tr. for Lsf9 Master Participation Trust, No. A21A1594 (Ga. Ct. App. July 23, 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
212 Ga. App. at 183 “a motion to reconsider does not toll the time for filing an application to appeal.”13 citing cases7 citing courts quote it · passage not found verbatim in the opinion (79%)
Show 3 more citing cases
  • Ammon Ra Sumrall v. Toddrick Hunter, No. A19D0351 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).published 2 cites
    See Cheeley- Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183, 183 (1) ( 441 SE2d 452 ) (1994); Harris v. State, 278 Ga. 280 , 282 n.3 ( 600 SE2d 592 ) (2004) (“[A] motion to reconsider does not toll the time for filing an application to appea…
  • In Re Duston Tapley, Jr., No. A19A0219 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).published 2 cites
    See Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183, 183 (1) ( 441 SE2d 452 ) (1994).
  • In the Interest Of: H. G. & L. G., Child., No. A16A1773 (Ga. Ct. App. June 15, 2016).published 2 cites
    See Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183, 183 (1) ( 441 SE2d 452 ) (1994).
212 Ga. App. at 184 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Sarah Sears v. MacOn Tel. Publ'g Co., No. A17A0026 (Ga. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016).published 2 cites
    See Cheeley-Towns v. Rapid Group, Inc., 212 Ga. App. 183, 184 (1) ( 441 SE2d 452 ) (1994).
Other citing cases13 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Show 3 more citing cases
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHEELEY-TOWNS
v.
RAPID GROUP, INC.
A93A2197.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 11, 1994.
Published opinion
441 S.E.2d 452
1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 182
George P. Graves, for appellant. Sidney L. Moore, Jr., for appellee.
Smith.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published
Smith, Judge.

Brenda Cheeley-Towns appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment sua sponte to Rapid Group, Inc. The trial court entered its summary judgment order on January 20, 1993. On February 19, 1993, Rapid Group filed a motion seeking expenses of litigation pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14. On March 5, 1993, Cheeley-Towns responded to Rapid Group’s motion for litigation expenses and filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of January 20. On June 8, 1993, the trial court entered an order granting Rapid Group’s motion for litigation expenses and denying Cheeley-Towns’ motion for reconsideration. Cheeley-Towns filed her notice of appeal on June 18, 1993.

1. The only directly appealable order of record is the order of January 20, 1993 granting summary judgment to Rapid Group. “ ‘The appeal was not filed within 30 days from this order, however, but was filed subsequent to the denial of a motion for reconsideration of this order several months later. It has repeatedly been held that, unlike a motion for new trial, motion in arrest of judgment, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. (Cits.) . . . Thus we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.’ [Cits.] ‘(E)ven if we were to construe appellant’s (motion for reconsideration) as a motion to set aside, this court would still have no jurisdiction over the appeal. Appeals from the denial of such motions are discretionary and appellant did not follow the applicable procedure to secure appellate review of the denial of (its) motion. (Cits.)’ [Cit.]” Alvin Lee Co. v. Garmon Electrical Contractors, 190 Ga. App. 159 (378 SE2d 384) (1989).

2. An appeal from an award of expenses of litigation under OCGA § 9-15-14 is likewise discretionary, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10), when not “appealed as part of a judgment that is directly appealable.” Haggard v. Bd. of Regents &c. of Ga., 257 Ga. 524, 526 (4a) (360 SE2d 566) (1987). Since, as held in Division 1, we lack jurisdiction of the underlying claim in the trial court, a direct appeal from the award of expenses of litigation will not lie. Haggard, supra; Martin v. Outz, 257 Ga. 211 (357 SE2d 91) (1987).

Appeal dismissed.

Beasley, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.