Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
286 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 97 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ellis v. Stanfordgreen2 sentences2013We, too, have held that the appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse “requires compliance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” (Citation omitted.) Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 295 (2) ( 568 SE2d 157 ) (2002). 2013We, too, have held that the appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse “requires compliance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” (Citation omitted.) Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 295 (2) ( 568 SE2d 157 ) (2002). | 23 | 23 |
Stevens v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See also Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218 ( 734 SE2d 743 ) (2012). 2020See also Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218 ( 734 SE2d 743 ) (2012). | 19 | 21 |
Sosniak v. Stategreen2 sentences2020However, in Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35, 36-40 (2) ( 734 SE2d 362 ) (2012), the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that such an order is not directly appealable and that a defendant must follow the OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) interlocutory appeal procedures to obtain immediate appellate review. 2020However, in Sosniak v. State, 292 Ga. 35, 36-40 (2) ( 734 SE2d 362 ) (2012), the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that such an order is not directly appealable and that a defendant must follow the OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) interlocutory appeal procedures to obtain immediate appellate review. | 18 | 26 |
Bailey v. Baileygreen2 sentences2021See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) (providing that an order denying summary judgment is subject to review by the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)); Carr v. Carr, 238 Ga. 197, 197 ( 232 SE2d 69 ) (1977); Butler v. Gray, 177 Ga. App. 498, 498 ( 339 SE2d 769 ) (1986). “[A] party appealing an interlocutory order must comply with the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), irrespective of whether the appeal is brought pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35.” Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996) (punctuation omitted). 2021See OCGA § 9-11-56 (h) (providing that an order denying summary judgment is subject to review by the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)); Carr v. Carr, 238 Ga. 197, 197 ( 232 SE2d 69 ) (1977); Butler v. Gray, 177 Ga. App. 498, 498 ( 339 SE2d 769 ) (1986). “[A] party appealing an interlocutory order must comply with the requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), irrespective of whether the appeal is brought pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35.” Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996) (punctuation omitted). | 15 | 16 |
Islamkhan v. Khangreen2 sentences2026See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). 2026See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). | 15 | 15 |
Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2017See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996) (“an order awarding temporary alimony is interlocutory and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)”); see also Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007). 2017See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996) (“an order awarding temporary alimony is interlocutory and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)”); see also Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007). | 12 | 12 |
Rolleston v. Glynn County Board of Tax Assessorsgreen2 sentences2026See Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 295 (2) ( 568 SE2d 157 ) (2002); see also Rolleston v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 213 Ga. App. 552, 553 ( 445 SE2d 345 ) (1994). 2026See Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga. App. 294, 295 (2) ( 568 SE2d 157 ) (2002); see also Rolleston v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 213 Ga. App. 552, 553 ( 445 SE2d 345 ) (1994). | 11 | 11 |
Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of Americagreen2 sentences2012Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 ( 385 SE2d 731 ) (1989) (citations and punctuation omitted). 3 56 (h); the trial court did not direct entry of final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b); and Freeman did not comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). 2012Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 ( 385 SE2d 731 ) (1989) (citations and punctuation omitted). 3 56 (h); the trial court did not direct entry of final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b); and Freeman did not comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). | 10 | 12 |
Scruggs v. Georgia Department of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2013Because the case is pending below, Deedra was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587 ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). 2013Because the case is pending below, Deedra was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587 ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). | 7 | 11 |
Boyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 ( 383 SE2d 906 ) (1989). 2026Because the record here contains no written disposition of Count 2, Fields was required to comply with the OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory appeal procedures and obtain a certificate of immediate review to appeal his convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial.1 See Boyd, 191 Ga. App. at 435 . | 7 | 8 |
Hann v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Porter v. State, 367 Ga. App. 70 , 72(1) & n.9 ( 885 SE2d 51 ) (2023) (the pendency of a motion for new trial divests the appellate court of jurisdiction, absent compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34(b)); Hann v. State, 292 Ga. App. 719, 720 (1) ( 665 SE2d 731 ) (2008) (same). 2026See Porter v. State, 367 Ga. App. 70 , 72(1) & n.9 ( 885 SE2d 51 ) (2023) (the pendency of a motion for new trial divests the appellate court of jurisdiction, absent compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34(b)); Hann v. State, 292 Ga. App. 719, 720 (1) ( 665 SE2d 731 ) (2008) (same). | 7 | 7 |
Carter v. Landel/Arundel, Inc.green2 sentences2022See Carter v. Landel/Arundel, Inc., 172 Ga. App. 115, 116 (3) ( 322 SE2d 108 ) (1984). 2022See Carter v. Landel/Arundel, Inc., 172 Ga. App. 115, 116 (3) ( 322 SE2d 108 ) (1984). | 7 | 7 |
Murphy v. Murphygreen2 sentences2021See Davis v. Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 ( 249 SE2d 90 ) (1978); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 747 SE2d 21 ) (2013). 2021See Davis v. Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 ( 249 SE2d 90 ) (1978); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 747 SE2d 21 ) (2013). | 7 | 7 |
Cohen v. Cohengreen2 sentences2013See Cohen v. Cohen, 300 Ga. App. 7, 8 (1) ( 684 SE2d 94 ) (2009); Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45 ( 679 SE2d 80 ) (2009). 2013See Cohen v. Cohen, 300 Ga. App. 7, 8 (1) ( 684 SE2d 94 ) (2009); Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45 ( 679 SE2d 80 ) (2009). | 6 | 6 |
Underwood v. Dunngreen2 sentences2024OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals only from “final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” Because the issue of damages has not been resolved, Taylor was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) in order to obtain appellate review at this juncture.1 See Underwood v. Dunn, 215 Ga. App. 252, 252-253 ( 451 SE2d 129 ) (1994). 2024OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals only from “final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” Because the issue of damages has not been resolved, Taylor was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) in order to obtain appellate review at this juncture.1 See Underwood v. Dunn, 215 Ga. App. 252, 252-253 ( 451 SE2d 129 ) (1994). | 5 | 5 |
SOTTER v. Stephensgreen2 sentences2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). 2024Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) ( 787 SE2d 731 ) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13- 6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 ( 727 SE2d 484 ) (2012). | 5 | 5 |
Rivera v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2022We have held that a trial court’s order on sovereign immunity is interlocutory in nature, and in order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appeal of such an order ordinarily “must be pursued through the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 777 (784 SE2d 775) (2016). 2022We have held that a trial court’s order on sovereign immunity is interlocutory in nature, and in order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, an appeal of such an order ordinarily “must be pursued through the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 777 (784 SE2d 775) (2016). | 5 | 5 |
Davis v. Davisgreen2 sentences2021See Davis v. Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 ( 249 SE2d 90 ) (1978); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 747 SE2d 21 ) (2013). 2021See Davis v. Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 ( 249 SE2d 90 ) (1978); Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 830 ( 747 SE2d 21 ) (2013). | 5 | 5 |
Grogan v. City of Dawsonvillegreen2 sentences2024If the underlying subject matter of the appeal is one of the categories of cases listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a), the appeal “shall be by application in the nature of a petition enumerating the errors to be urged on appeal and stating why the appellate court has jurisdiction[,]” OCGA § 5-6-35 (b), “even when the party is appealing a judgment or order that is procedurally subject to [immediate] appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)[,]” Grogan, 305 Ga. at 82 (2) (citation and 1 We have often used the phrase “direct appeal” confusingly to “refer to two different concepts: (1) an immediate appeal [under OCGA 2024If the underlying subject matter of the appeal is one of the categories of cases listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a), the appeal “shall be by application in the nature of a petition enumerating the errors to be urged on appeal and stating why the appellate court has jurisdiction[,]” OCGA § 5-6-35 (b), “even when the party is appealing a judgment or order that is procedurally subject to [immediate] appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)[,]” Grogan, 305 Ga. at 82 (2) (citation and 1 We have often used the phrase “direct appeal” confusingly to “refer to two different concepts: (1) an immediate appeal [under OCGA | 4 | 4 |
Park v. Baileygreen2 sentences2026See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Park v. Bailey, 329 Ga. App. 569, 571 ( 765 SE2d 721 ) (2014); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427, 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). 2026See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Park v. Bailey, 329 Ga. App. 569, 571 ( 765 SE2d 721 ) (2014); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427, 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). | 4 | 4 |
Murray v. Roziergreen2 sentences2026See Murray v. Rozier, 186 Ga. App. 184, 184 ( 367 SE2d 886 ) (1988). 2026See Murray v. Rozier, 186 Ga. App. 184, 184 ( 367 SE2d 886 ) (1988). | 4 | 4 |
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences2025See Underwood v. Dunn, 215 Ga. App. 252, 252-53 ( 451 SE2d 129 ) (1994); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hawkins, 156 Ga. App. 135, 136 (1) ( 274 SE2d 132 ) (1980). 2025See Underwood v. Dunn, 215 Ga. App. 252, 252-53 ( 451 SE2d 129 ) (1994); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hawkins, 156 Ga. App. 135, 136 (1) ( 274 SE2d 132 ) (1980). | 4 | 4 |
Drake v. Cluttergreen2 sentences2022See Hann v. State, 292 Ga. App. 719, 720 (1) ( 665 SE2d 731 ) (2008); Drake v. Clutter, 194 Ga. App. 644, 645 ( 391 SE2d 473 ) (1990). 2022See Hann v. State, 292 Ga. App. 719, 720 (1) ( 665 SE2d 731 ) (2008); Drake v. Clutter, 194 Ga. App. 644, 645 ( 391 SE2d 473 ) (1990). | 4 | 4 |
Northen v. Mary Anne Frolick & Associatesgreen2 sentences2017See Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007); Northen v. Mary Anne Frolick & Assoc., 235 Ga. App. 804, 806 (1) ( 510 SE2d 122 ) (1998). 2017See Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 ( 646 SE2d 469 ) (2007); Northen v. Mary Anne Frolick & Assoc., 235 Ga. App. 804, 806 (1) ( 510 SE2d 122 ) (1998). | 4 | 4 |
Gray v. Springsgreen2 sentences2013Because the case is pending below, Deedra was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587 ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). 2013Because the case is pending below, Deedra was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 ( 471 SE2d 213 ) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587 ( 408 SE2d 103 ) (1991); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427 ( 481 SE2d 3 ) (1997). | 3 | 5 |
Shoenthal v. Shoenthalgreen2 sentences2025Where neither of these code sections [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729, 730 ( 776 SE2d 663 ) (2015) (citations and punctuation omitted). 2025Where neither of these code sections [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729, 730 ( 776 SE2d 663 ) (2015) (citations and punctuation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
BUCKNER-WEBB v. Stategreen2 sentences2024OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” “[A]s a general rule, when a party seeks to appeal a non-final order issued by a trial court before the case is fully adjudicated below, Georgia courts require adherence to the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) for appellate review.” Buckner-Webb v. State, 314 Ga. 823, 827 (2) (a) (878 SE2d 481) (2022). 2024OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” “[A]s a general rule, when a party seeks to appeal a non-final order issued by a trial court before the case is fully adjudicated below, Georgia courts require adherence to the interlocutory procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) for appellate review.” Buckner-Webb v. State, 314 Ga. 823, 827 (2) (a) (878 SE2d 481) (2022). | 3 | 3 |
| Duke v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Mauer v. Parker Fibernet, LLCgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Mullinax v. Stategreen | 3 | 3 |
| Cornelius v. Finleygreen | 3 | 3 |
| Sipple v. Atwoodgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Goshayeshi v. Mehrabiangreen | 3 | 3 |
| Oxmoor Portfolio, LLC v. Flooring & Tile Superstore of Conyers, Inc.green | 3 | 3 |
Taylor v. Curlgreen2 sentences2012Additionally, in Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250 (1) ( 703 SE2d 597 ) (2010), this Court quoted with approval Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45 ( 679 SE2d 80 ) (2009), which held that an order granting temporary custody was not subject to the interlocutory or discretionary appeal requirements, but was instead directly appeal-able under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11). 2012Additionally, in Todd v. Todd, 287 Ga. 250 (1) ( 703 SE2d 597 ) (2010), this Court quoted with approval Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga. App. 45 ( 679 SE2d 80 ) (2009), which held that an order granting temporary custody was not subject to the interlocutory or discretionary appeal requirements, but was instead directly appeal-able under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11). | 2 | 9 |
Genter v. Stategreen2 sentences2020In order to appeal the ruling, Gaskins was thus required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 See Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 186 (4) ( 829 SE2d 348 ) (2019) [as a general rule, “a litigant must obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court before pursuing an interlocutory appeal from an order not subject to immediate appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)”]; Genter v. State, 218 Ga. App. 311 ( 460 SE2d 879 ) (1995). 1 The record indicates that Gaskins obtained a certificate of immediate review, but she apparently did not file an application for interloc 2020In order to appeal the ruling, Gaskins was thus required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).1 See Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 186 (4) ( 829 SE2d 348 ) (2019) [as a general rule, “a litigant must obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court before pursuing an interlocutory appeal from an order not subject to immediate appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)”]; Genter v. State, 218 Ga. App. 311 ( 460 SE2d 879 ) (1995). 1 The record indicates that Gaskins obtained a certificate of immediate review, but she apparently did not file an application for interloc | 2 | 5 |
Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klemgreen2 sentences2013Co. v. Empire Banking Co., 268 Ga. 450, 451 ( 490 SE2d 372 ) (1997) (“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment is clearly an interlocutory ruling which, if certified by the trial court, is subject to the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).”) (citation omitted) 8 See, e. g., Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294 -295 (1) ( 271 SE2d 199 ) (1980) (holding that the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed without interlocutory application when it is tied to the appeal of an appealable order or judgment); Board of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505, 506 2013Co. v. Empire Banking Co., 268 Ga. 450, 451 ( 490 SE2d 372 ) (1997) (“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment is clearly an interlocutory ruling which, if certified by the trial court, is subject to the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).”) (citation omitted) 8 See, e. g., Southeast Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294 -295 (1) ( 271 SE2d 199 ) (1980) (holding that the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed without interlocutory application when it is tied to the appeal of an appealable order or judgment); Board of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505, 506 | 2 | 4 |
| Turner v. Gilesgreen | 2 | 3 |
| Ivey v. Stategreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Cashgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
| Spell v. State green | 3 | 2014–2015 |
| Holton v. State green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| Braddy v. State red | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Booker green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Griffith v. GEORGIA BOARD OF DENTISTRY green | 2 | 1994–1998 |
| RASHAWNDA SMALL v. CHATHAM COUNTY neutral | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| ERIC ANTHONY FERGUSON v. TIMOHTY SPRAGGINS, AS OF THE ESTATE OF SYLVIA SPRAGGINS green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Willis v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.