Ivey v. State, 437 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Ivey v. State, 437 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Frederick Antwan Gilyard v. State (gactapp, 2024-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frederick Antwan Gilyard v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure); Stewart v. State, 240 Ga. App. 154, 154 ( 522 SE2d 743 ) (1999) (order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment is an interlocutory order).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Michael Stone v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mario D. Westbrook v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Shane Huggins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Rather, “objections to overruling a special demurrer are reviewable by the appellate courts under the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), or after conviction.” Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783 ( 437 SE2d 810 ).
examined Cited "see" Rashawn Mitchell v. State (3×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782, 783 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited "see" Sara Claudia Tillman v. Tanner Medical Center, Inc (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited "see" Roy Boone Bright v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited "see" In the Interest of G. L. S., a Minor Child (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited "see" Larry Harper v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).1 Because Harper failed to comply with the requisite procedures for obtaining 1 Although Harper filed an application for discretionary appeal, compliance with the discretionary appeal statute, OCGA § 5-6-35, does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).
discussed Cited "see" Dominique Gilbert v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
discussed Cited "see" Wendell S. Henry v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ivey v. State, 210 Ga. App. 782 ( 437 SE2d 810 ) (1993) (appeal of order overruling special demurrer required compliance with interlocutory appeal procedure).
IVEY
v.
State
A93A1798.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 6, 1993.
437 S.E.2d 810
William C. Head, for appellant., David C. Turk III, District Attorney, Durwood Davis, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Blackburn.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Blackburn, Judge.

The appellant, Kory Ivey, was charged with driving under the influence, operating a vehicle while in possession of an open container, and driving too fast for conditions. Prior to arraignment, Ivey filed a special demurrer to the accusation, contending that it did not comply with the signature requirement of OCGA § 17-7-71 because it contained the typewritten name of the district attorney rather than his[*783] actual signature.

Decided October 6, 1993 Reconsideration denied November 5, 1993 William C. Head, for appellant. David C. Turk III, District Attorney, Durwood Davis, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

At the inception of the trial, Ivey also filed a motion for discharge and acquittal, asserting that if his special demurrer were granted, subsequent prosecution would be barred. The trial court denied the special demurrer, but adjourned the proceeding when counsel for Ivey persuaded him that immediate, direct appeal of the denial was authorized. Ivey then filed a notice of appeal resulting in this direct appeal.

As noted in Gibson v. State, 187 Ga. App. 769 (371 SE2d 413) (1988), this court has previously upheld the validity of accusations which contained only the typewritten name of the solicitor, notwithstanding the statutory requirement that such be signed by the solicitor. In doing so, we reasoned that the typed name was the equivalent of a signature within the meaning of the statute. Hardeman v. State, 147 Ga. App. 120 (1) (248 SE2d 189) (1978); Byrd v. State, 72 Ga. App. 840 (1) (35 SE2d 385) (1945).

However, we may not address the issue now, because objections to overruling a special demurrer are reviewable by the appellate courts under the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), or after conviction. See State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 486 (238 SE2d 38) (1977). Accordingly, Ivey’s direct appeal of this interlocutory matter must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

McMurray, P. J., and Johnson, J., concur.