purpose of correcting error (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

purpose of correcting error in Georgia

7 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2025 5 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ferrell v. Younggreen
gactapp · 2013 · cited in 5 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2023–2025
2 sentences

2025“When the record discloses that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, [an appellate court has] jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ferrell v. Young, 323 Ga. App. 338, 344 (2) ( 746 SE2d 167 ) (2013).

2025“When the record discloses that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, [an appellate court has] jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ferrell v. Young, 323 Ga. App. 338, 344 (2) ( 746 SE2d 167 ) (2013).

55
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environmentgreen
scotus · 1998 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013When the record discloses that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, “we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 95 ( 118 SCt 1003 , 140 LE2d 210) (1998) (citation and punctuation omitted); OCGA § 9-11-12 (h) (3).

2013When the record discloses that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, “we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 95 ( 118 SCt 1003 , 140 LE2d 210) (1998) (citation and punctuation omitted); OCGA § 9-11-12 (h) (3).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Lathrop v. Deal green
ga · 2017
2 sentences

2023The plaintiffs, on the other hand, rely upon the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 ( 801 SE2d 867 ) (2017), to assert that their action against a commissioner and zoning manager, in their official capacities, amounts to a suit against the county itself and should be considered the equivalent of bringing the action exclusively in the name of the county under Article I, Section II, Paragraph V (b) (2) of our Constitution.

2023The plaintiffs, on the other hand, rely upon the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408 ( 801 SE2d 867 ) (2017), to assert that their action against a commissioner and zoning manager, in their official capacities, amounts to a suit against the county itself and should be considered the equivalent of bringing the action exclusively in the name of the county under Article I, Section II, Paragraph V (b) (2) of our Constitution.

22023–2023

Where else courts name it

HI 33 (1942–2026) WY 10 (1977–2023) GA 7 (2013–2025) CA 5 (1925–1968) LA 4 (1913–2010) TX 3 (1962–2005) OK 3 (1917–1938) MI 3 (2003–2019) OH 2 (2009–2014) NY 2 (1881–1933) FL 2 (1936–1937) WV 2 (1912–1927) VA 2 (2010–2010) OR 2 (1905–1959)

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