right to make defense in Georgia

11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State Bar of Ga. v. Beazleygreen ga · 1986 · cited in 3 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2008–2019 2 sentences 2019“These prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata acts as a bar to subsequent litigation—identity of the cause of action, identity of the parties or their privies, and a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). (a) Identity of the Parties “The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment.” State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 4 2019“These prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata acts as a bar to subsequent litigation—identity of the cause of action, identity of the parties or their privies, and a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). (a) Identity of the Parties “The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment.” State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 4	3	3
Smith v. Gettingergreen ga · 1847 · cited in 3 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1986–2007 2 sentences 2007Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21	3	3
Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinsongreen ga · 2010 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019“A privy is generally defined as one who is represented at trial and who is in law so connected with a party to the judgment as to have such an identity of interest that the 22 party to the judgment represented the same legal right.” Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485, 487 ( 696 SE2d 667 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2019“A privy is generally defined as one who is represented at trial and who is in law so connected with a party to the judgment as to have such an identity of interest that the 22 party to the judgment represented the same legal right.” Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485, 487 ( 696 SE2d 667 ) (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted).	1	1
Georgia Music Operators Ass'n v. Fulton Countygreen ga · 1937 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Ga. v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) ("The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. 348 ( 447 SE2d 700 ) (1994). 6 See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) (“The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, contr	1	1
Echols v. Cochrangreen gactapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Ga. v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) ("The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. 348 ( 447 SE2d 700 ) (1994). 6 See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) (“The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, contr	1	1
Roberts v. Hillgreen gactapp · 1950 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21	1	1
Brown v. Browngreen ga · 1956 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Crowe v. Elder green ga · 2012 1 sentence 2019“These prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata acts as a bar to subsequent litigation—identity of the cause of action, identity of the parties or their privies, and a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). (a) Identity of the Parties “The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment.” State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 4	1	2019–2019
Goodman v. State green ga · 1937 2 sentences 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Ga. v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) ("The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, control the pleadings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from 2015See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. 348 ( 447 SE2d 700 ) (1994). 6 See Echols v. Cochran, 214 Ga. App. at 348 (addressing on the merits an appeal filed by blood relatives of a child sought to be adopted, where the child had no legal father or legal mother living, from an order declaring that the appellants lacked standing to file objections to the adoption petition); see also State Bar of Georgia v. Beazley, 256 Ga. 561, 563 (1) (b) ( 350 SE2d 422 ) (1986) (“The term ‘party’ to an action includes all who are directly interested in the subject matter, and who have a right to make defense, contr	1	2015–2015
Eskew v. Eskew green ga · 1945 2 sentences 2010However, the right to make a claim for "alimony depends upon a valid, subsisting marriage between the applicant and the [person] out of whose estate the allowance of alimony is claimed, and this is true even though it is claimed only for the support of a child. [Cits.]" Eskew v. Eskew, 199 Ga. 513 (2), 34 S.E.2d 697 (1945). 2010However, the right to make a claim for "alimony depends upon a valid, subsisting marriage between the applicant and the [person] out of whose estate the allowance of alimony is claimed, and this is true even though it is claimed only for the support of a child. [Cits.]" Eskew v. Eskew, 199 Ga. 513 (2), 34 S.E.2d 697 (1945).	1	2010–2010
Hall v. Hall green ga · 1977 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21	1	2001–2001
Sorrells Construction Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C. green gactapp · 1994 2 sentences 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21 2001Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 -194 ( 447 SE2d 101 ) (1994). 3 OCGA § 9-12-40. 4 Sorrells Constr., supra, 214 Ga. App. at 193-194 . 5 Cf. Roberts v. Hill, 81 Ga. App. 185, 186 (3) ( 58 SE2d 465 ) (1950) (physical precedent only) (a party is one who is “ ‘directly interested in the subject-matter, had a right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine witnesses, to control the proceedings and to appeal from the judgment’ ”), citing Smith v. Gettinger, 3 Ga. 140, 142 (1847). 6 Hall v. Hall, 240 Ga. 28 ( 239 SE2d 356 ) (1977). 7 Compare Brown v. Brown, 21	1	2001–2001
Southern Fire Insurance v. Knight green ga · 1900 2 sentences 1929Southern Fire Insurance Co. v. Knight, 111 Ga. 622 ( 36 S. E. 821 , 52 L. 1929Southern Fire Insurance Co. v. Knight, 111 Ga. 622 ( 36 S. E. 821 , 52 L.	1	1929–1929
Michelson v. Cunningham neutral ga · 1895 2 sentences 1924While it is the better and safer practice for the mortgagor, if he has a defense, to file the same on the first day of the term to which the rule nisi is returnable, he has the right to make such defense “at any time during the term, before or when his case is called for trial, but not afterwards.” Michelson v. Cunningham, 96 Ga. 601 ( 24 S. E. 144 ). 1924While it is the better and safer practice for the mortgagor, if he has a defense, to file the same on the first day of the term to which the rule nisi is returnable, he has the right to make such defense “at any time during the term, before or when his case is called for trial, but not afterwards.” Michelson v. Cunningham, 96 Ga. 601 ( 24 S. E. 144 ).	1	1924–1924
Bryant v. Owen green ga · 1846 1 sentence 1917Bryant v. Owen, 1 Ga. 355 ; Bennett v. Graham, 71 Ga. 213 ; Gibson v. Robinson, 90 Ga. 756 (2) ( 16 S. E. 969 , 35 Am.	1	1917–1917
Gibson v. Robinson green · 1893 2 sentences 1917Bryant v. Owen, 1 Ga. 355 ; Bennett v. Graham, 71 Ga. 213 ; Gibson v. Robinson, 90 Ga. 756 (2) ( 16 S. E. 969 , 35 Am. 1917Bryant v. Owen, 1 Ga. 355 ; Bennett v. Graham, 71 Ga. 213 ; Gibson v. Robinson, 90 Ga. 756 (2) ( 16 S. E. 969 , 35 Am.	1	1917–1917
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley green · 1911 1 sentence 1913Co. v. Mottley, supra, there can be no question that Congress had the right to make the exception; and the language in which the exception is conferred is too plain- to be misunderstood.	1	1913–1913

Statutes the citing opinions construe

GA § 9-12-40 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 45 (1956–2024) NY 25 (1882–2018) TX 23 (1883–2025) IN 20 (1947–2015) IA 18 (1892–2025) OR 16 (1887–2023) IL 12 (1907–2024) MI 12 (1895–2026) OH 12 (1949–2026) VA 11 (1874–2023) AL 11 (1887–2017) GA 11 (1913–2019) WA 10 (1927–2025) LA 10 (1953–2025) WI 10 (1960–2025) NJ 9 (1957–2004) KY 9 (1863–2014) NM 8 (1939–2013) MO 8 (1902–2016) FL 8 (1931–2025) MD 8 (1919–2025) DC 7 (1973–2022) PA 7 (1898–2018) MN 7 (1995–2004) AZ 7 (1928–2021) NC 6 (1972–2017) RI 5 (1980–2021) KS 5 (1878–2021) MS 5 (1981–2001) AR 5 (1944–2014) CT 5 (1946–2017) CO 5 (1890–2020) OK 5 (1911–2007) HI 4 (1899–1996) VT 4 (1891–2026) UT 3 (1990–2017) MA 3 (2008–2022) AK 3 (1984–1996) TN 3 (1988–2024) DE 3 (2009–2012) ID 3 (1986–2015) ME 3 (1978–2004) WY 2 (1978–1992) SC 2 (1924–2014) WV 2 (1903–1941) ND 2 (1910–1986)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check