divorce hearing in Georgia

10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2026 1 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
Oseni v. Hambrickgreen gactapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026The notice shows that it was “filed in court” on the day of the hearing, and its certificate of service states that it was hand delivered to Russell’s trial counsel,5 Shara’s counsel, and the GAL, which indicates that hand-delivery occurred in court. 4 Shara also alleged that Russell had violated paragraphs B and D of the decree, but the contempt ruling was not based on violations of those paragraphs. 5 Russell was represented by new counsel at the contempt hearing. 7 “[N]otice to an attorney is notice to the client employing him, and . . . knowledge of an attorney is knowledge of his client, 2026The notice shows that it was “filed in court” on the day of the hearing, and its certificate of service states that it was hand delivered to Russell’s trial counsel,5 Shara’s counsel, and the GAL, which indicates that hand-delivery occurred in court. 4 Shara also alleged that Russell had violated paragraphs B and D of the decree, but the contempt ruling was not based on violations of those paragraphs. 5 Russell was represented by new counsel at the contempt hearing. 7 “[N]otice to an attorney is notice to the client employing him, and . . . knowledge of an attorney is knowledge of his client,	1	1
Brown v. Kinsergreen gactapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Brown v. Kinser, 218 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1) ( 461 SE2d 564 ) (1995) (“[a]n applicant is not entitled to attorney fees [under OCGA § 9-15-14] merely because summary judgment was granted in his favor; grant of summary judgment does not per force result in an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party”); Hyre v. Paxson, 214 Ga. App. 552, 556 (10) (b) ( 449 SE2d 120 ) (1994) (same). 2016See Brown v. Kinser, 218 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1) ( 461 SE2d 564 ) (1995) (“[a]n applicant is not entitled to attorney fees [under OCGA § 9-15-14] merely because summary judgment was granted in his favor; grant of summary judgment does not per force result in an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party”); Hyre v. Paxson, 214 Ga. App. 552, 556 (10) (b) ( 449 SE2d 120 ) (1994) (same).	1	1
Hyre v. Denisegreen gactapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Brown v. Kinser, 218 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1) ( 461 SE2d 564 ) (1995) (“[a]n applicant is not entitled to attorney fees [under OCGA § 9-15-14] merely because summary judgment was granted in his favor; grant of summary judgment does not per force result in an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party”); Hyre v. Paxson, 214 Ga. App. 552, 556 (10) (b) ( 449 SE2d 120 ) (1994) (same). 2016See Brown v. Kinser, 218 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1) ( 461 SE2d 564 ) (1995) (“[a]n applicant is not entitled to attorney fees [under OCGA § 9-15-14] merely because summary judgment was granted in his favor; grant of summary judgment does not per force result in an award of attorney fees for the prevailing party”); Hyre v. Paxson, 214 Ga. App. 552, 556 (10) (b) ( 449 SE2d 120 ) (1994) (same).	1	1
Teasley v. Stategreen ga · 2013 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013We note that this ruling is based solely on the evidence that was presented to the trial court at the final divorce hearing, and not based on any additional evidence that Wife presented to the trial court at the motion for new trial hearing, as a party “cannot rely on evidence presented after trial to show that the trial court erred in [making] a decision the court had to make based on the evidence it had at that time.” (Emphasis in original.) Teasley v. State, 293 Ga. 758, 763 (3) (b) ( 749 SE2d 710 ) (2013). 2013We note that this ruling is based solely on the evidence that was presented to the trial court at the final divorce hearing, and not based on any additional evidence that Wife presented to the trial court at the motion for new trial hearing, as a party “cannot rely on evidence presented after trial to show that the trial court erred in [making] a decision the court had to make based on the evidence it had at that time.” (Emphasis in original.) Teasley v. State, 293 Ga. 758, 763 (3) (b) ( 749 SE2d 710 ) (2013).	1	1
Rank v. Rankgreen ga · 2010 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See Rank v. Rank, 287 Ga. 147, 149 (2) ( 695 SE2d 13 ) (2010) (“Attorneys are officers of the court, and their statements in their place, if not objected to, serve the same function as evidence”) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2013See Rank v. Rank, 287 Ga. 147, 149 (2) ( 695 SE2d 13 ) (2010) (“Attorneys are officers of the court, and their statements in their place, if not objected to, serve the same function as evidence”) (citation and punctuation omitted).	1	1
Abernathy v. Abernathygreen ga · 1997 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012In any event, to the extent that due process required that Wife receive actual notice of the final divorce hearing, see Abernathy, 267 Ga. at 817 , it is obvious that she had actual notice here, since she appeared at the hearing. 2012See id. (holding that actual notice was shown even where the defendant made a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction).	1	1
Shepherd v. Shepherdgreen ga · 1973 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2. 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2.	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 (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Johnson v. Johnson green ga · 1990 2 sentences 2010Id. 2010Id.	1	2010–2010
Wright v. Wright green ga · 2003 2 sentences 2009Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133 , 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003). [2] While the parties' settlement agreement did not include this provision, Husband agreed when he testified at the divorce hearing to maintain the life insurance policy for the benefit of his children. 2009Wright v. Wright, 277 Ga. 133 , 587 S.E.2d 600 (2003). [2] While the parties' settlement agreement did not include this provision, Husband agreed when he testified at the divorce hearing to maintain the life insurance policy for the benefit of his children.	1	2009–2009
Furlow v. State green ga · 2000 2 sentences 2006This Court granted Mr. Coleman’s application, posing the question, “In a pending divorce action, did the trial court err by issuing an order in which it stated that it would not grant any redress to the parties if they chose not to be present at the final divorce hearing?” Trial courts are vested with a broad discretion in the conduct of trials (Furlow v. State, 272 Ga. 795 (2) ( 537 SE2d 61 ) (2000)), but neither the order under review here nor the record in this case demonstrates an exercise of such discretion by articulating a basis for the decision. 2006This Court granted Mr. Coleman’s application, posing the question, “In a pending divorce action, did the trial court err by issuing an order in which it stated that it would not grant any redress to the parties if they chose not to be present at the final divorce hearing?” Trial courts are vested with a broad discretion in the conduct of trials (Furlow v. State, 272 Ga. 795 (2) ( 537 SE2d 61 ) (2000)), but neither the order under review here nor the record in this case demonstrates an exercise of such discretion by articulating a basis for the decision.	1	2006–2006
Lambert v. Gilmer green ga · 1972 2 sentences 1975As to what happened at the trial of the divorce, the judgment of divorce indicates only that there was "evidence submitted as provided by law.” In addition, the order denying the motion to dismiss states that a lawyer "was employed to represent the Respondent in a divorce case and was present when the trial of the case was conducted; and ... that no objection or further action was taken to contest the award of alimony.” Appellant argues that Pray v. Pray, 223 Ga. 215 ( 154 SE2d 208 ) (1967), and Lambert v. Gilmer, 228 Ga. 774 ( 187 SE2d 855 ) (1972) require reversal. 1975As to what happened at the trial of the divorce, the judgment of divorce indicates only that there was "evidence submitted as provided by law.” In addition, the order denying the motion to dismiss states that a lawyer "was employed to represent the Respondent in a divorce case and was present when the trial of the case was conducted; and ... that no objection or further action was taken to contest the award of alimony.” Appellant argues that Pray v. Pray, 223 Ga. 215 ( 154 SE2d 208 ) (1967), and Lambert v. Gilmer, 228 Ga. 774 ( 187 SE2d 855 ) (1972) require reversal.	1	1975–1975
Pray v. Pray green ga · 1967 2 sentences 1975As to what happened at the trial of the divorce, the judgment of divorce indicates only that there was "evidence submitted as provided by law.” In addition, the order denying the motion to dismiss states that a lawyer "was employed to represent the Respondent in a divorce case and was present when the trial of the case was conducted; and ... that no objection or further action was taken to contest the award of alimony.” Appellant argues that Pray v. Pray, 223 Ga. 215 ( 154 SE2d 208 ) (1967), and Lambert v. Gilmer, 228 Ga. 774 ( 187 SE2d 855 ) (1972) require reversal. 1975As to what happened at the trial of the divorce, the judgment of divorce indicates only that there was "evidence submitted as provided by law.” In addition, the order denying the motion to dismiss states that a lawyer "was employed to represent the Respondent in a divorce case and was present when the trial of the case was conducted; and ... that no objection or further action was taken to contest the award of alimony.” Appellant argues that Pray v. Pray, 223 Ga. 215 ( 154 SE2d 208 ) (1967), and Lambert v. Gilmer, 228 Ga. 774 ( 187 SE2d 855 ) (1972) require reversal.	1	1975–1975
Hobbs v. Hobbs neutral ga · 1924 2 sentences 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2. 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2.	1	1974–1974
Brown v. Lide neutral ga · 1929 2 sentences 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. *85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2.	1	1974–1974
Ogletree v. Ogletree neutral ga · 1929 2 sentences 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. *85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2.	1	1974–1974
Proctor v. Proctor green ga · 1968 2 sentences 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2. 1974Shepherd v. Shepherd, 231 Ga. 257, 260 ( 200 SE2d 893 ); Ogletree v. Ogletree, 169 Ga. 366 ( 150 SE 167 ); Hobbs v. 85 Hobbs, 158 Ga. 571 (2) ( 123 SE 891 ); Proctor v. Proctor, 224 Ga. 450 (2) ( 162 SE2d 398 ). 2.	1	1974–1974
Melton v. Hubbard green ga · 1910 1 sentence 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Wise v. Wise green · 1923 2 sentences 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4. 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Heflinger v. Heflinger green ga · 1926 2 sentences 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4. 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Jones v. Jones neutral kyctapphigh · 1926 2 sentences 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4. 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
McDowell v. Engel green gactapp · 1923 2 sentences 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4. 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Rush v. Howkins green ga · 1910 1 sentence 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Spear v. Spear green md · 1930 2 sentences 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4. 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943
Narregang v. Narregang green sd · 1913 1 sentence 1943Melton v. Hubbard, 135 Ga. 128 ( 68 S. E. 1101 ); Wise v. Wise, 156 Ga. 459 (2) ( 119 S. E. 410 ); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 161 Ga. 867 (6) ( 132 S. E. 85 ); McDowell v. Engel, 31 Ga. App. 428 ( 120 S. E. 674 ); Narregang v. Narregang, 31 S. D. 459 ( 139 N. W. 341 ); Jones v. Jones, 216 Ky. 810 ( 288 S. W. 737 ); Spear v. Spear, 158 Md. 672 ( 149 Atl. 468 ). 4.	1	1943–1943

Statutes the citing opinions construe

GA § 9-15-14 (4) GA § 19-6-2 (3)

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

TN 132 (1953–2026) OH 130 (1951–2026) TX 27 (1975–2025) AR 19 (1974–2026) MS 16 (1993–2025) WV 16 (1986–2026) AK 16 (1982–2024) VT 15 (1987–2025) PA 15 (1910–2025) ME 15 (1981–2020) WI 13 (1973–2023) GA 10 (1943–2026) AL 8 (1961–2016) NC 8 (2008–2022) KS 7 (1959–2019) SC 7 (1973–2022) MA 7 (1920–2025) VA 6 (1986–2023) NH 6 (1983–2022) MD 6 (1978–2011) IL 6 (1944–1979) NY 5 (1955–1996) CA 5 (1944–1962) LA 4 (1937–1992) ND 4 (1911–2025) NM 4 (1946–1981) WY 4 (1996–2022) MO 4 (1955–1970) NJ 4 (1985–2020) UT 3 (1991–2018) DC 3 (1998–2007) MI 3 (1970–2022) ID 3 (1953–2022) MT 3 (1981–2017) CT 2 (1982–2014) NE 2 (1991–1994) IA 2 (1911–2003) DE 2 (1983–1989) FL 2 (2007–2024) WA 2 (1954–2015) SD 2 (1981–1998)

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