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.
7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knapp v. Crossgreen2 sentences2023This is an exception to the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46.” Knapp v. Cross, 279 Ga. App. 632, 634 (1) ( 632 SE2d 157 ) (2006). 2023This is an exception to the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46.” Knapp v. Cross, 279 Ga. App. 632, 634 (1) ( 632 SE2d 157 ) (2006). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Harpagon Co., LLCgreen2 sentences2015See OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) (unless court orders otherwise, injunction 11 is not stayed pending resolution of appeal); Davis, 281 Ga. at 253 (injunctions are excepted from automatic supersedeas). 2015See OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) (unless court orders otherwise, injunction is not stayed pending resolution of appeal); Davis, 281 Ga. at 253 (injunctions are excepted from automatic supersedeas). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Spanngreen2 sentences2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 (810 SE2d 549) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (776 SE2d 179) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). 2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 (810 SE2d 549) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (776 SE2d 179) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. Channelgreen2 sentences2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 (810 SE2d 549) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (776 SE2d 179) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). 2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 (810 SE2d 549) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (776 SE2d 179) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). | 1 | 1 |
State of Ga. v. Vurgessgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Vurgess, 182 Ga. App. 544, 545 ( 356 SE2d 273 ) (1987). 2018See State v. Vurgess, 182 Ga. App. 544, 545 ( 356 SE2d 273 ) (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Atlanta Independent School Systemgreen1 sentence2013See id. at 257 ; OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction... shall not be stayed... during the pendency of an appeal. . . .”); Knapp v. Cross, 279 Ga. App. 632, 634 ( 632 SE2d 157 ) (2006) (explaining that OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) creates an exception to the automatic supersedeas of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Cravey
green
2 sentences2023Co. v. Cravey, 209 Ga. 274 (71 SE2d 659) (1952) and other mandamus cases, they argue that the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a) do not apply to cases involving extraordinary remedies. 2023Co. v. Cravey, 209 Ga. 274 (71 SE2d 659) (1952) and other mandamus cases, they argue that the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a) do not apply to cases involving extraordinary remedies. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Burton v. Glynn County
green
2 sentences2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 ( 810 SE2d 549 ) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) ( 776 SE2d 179 ) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 ( 520 SE2d 909 ) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). 2023Barnes v. Channel, 303 Ga. 88, 92 (1), n.3 (810 SE2d 549) (2018); Burton v. Glynn County, 297 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (776 SE2d 179) (2015); Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 496 (520 SE2d 909) (1999) 6 governing quo warranto proceedings, or any other statute, that exempts a judgment issued in a quo warranto proceeding from the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Howard v. Smith
green
2 sentences1996The interlocutory injunction has been in force in the interim, because OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) provides: “Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction . . . shall not be stayed during the period after its entry and until an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal.” See Howard v. Smith, 226 Ga. 850 ( 178 SE2d 159 ) (1970), which explains that this is an exception to the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46. 1996The interlocutory injunction has been in force in the interim, because OCGA § 9-11-62 (a) provides: “Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction . . . shall not be stayed during the period after its entry and until an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal.” See Howard v. Smith, 226 Ga. 850 ( 178 SE2d 159 ) (1970), which explains that this is an exception to the automatic supersedeas provisions of OCGA § 5-6-46. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.