O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
The rules of the respective courts, legally adopted and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or of this state, or the laws thereof, are binding and must be observed.
History
Orig. Code 1863, § 198; Code 1868, § 192; Code 1873, § 204; Code 1882, § 204; Civil Code 1895, § 4044;
Civil Code 1910, § 4641; Code 1933, § 24-106.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Rules are binding on practitioners and must be observed. - Rules of the Court of Appeals, promulgated by the court pursuant to the court’s rule-making authority, are binding on those who practice in the court and must be observed. Crider v. State, 115 Ga. App. 347, 154 S.E.2d 743 (1967). Construction placed upon the court’s own rules by court is generally conclusive. Roberts v. Kuhrt, 119 Ga. 704, 46 S.E. 856 (1904).
Common-law rule may apply to equity case. Central Bank v. Johnson & Smith, 56 Ga. 225 (1876); Fletcher v. Renfroe, 56 Ga. 674 (1876). Superior court rules may apply in city court. Chance v. State, 97 Ga. 346, 23 S.E. 832 (1895). Untimeliness under local rule. - If there was no pretrial order issued in a case, an amended complaint supported by affidavit which was filed and served on the day preceding the hearing could not prop-
erly be disallowed based upon untimeliness under the local rule. Gilbert v. Decker, 165 Ga. App. 11, 299 S.E.2d 65 (1983). Result of failure to follow rules. - Appellants successfully argued that the record was utterly devoid of any indication that the procedure in O.C.G.A. § 15-9-13 was followed in order to authorize the superior court judge to sit over the probate of the decedent’s will. No written order was entered pursuant to Uniform Probate Court Rule 3 for the appointment of the superior court judge to act in the probate judge’s absence. Thus, the superior court judge was not sitting over the probate proceedings in replacement for
the recused probate court judge. Because the superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the probate of a will, it follows that the judgment rendered by the superior court here was a nullity and void. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 276 Ga. 746, 583 S.E.2d 852 (2003). Cited in Hill v. State, 73 Ga. App. 293, 36 S.E.2d 191 (1945); Bearden v. Nash, 88 Ga. App. 722, 77 S.E.2d 541 (1953); Barfield v. State, 89 Ga. App. 204, 79 S.E.2d 68 (1953); King v. Skinner, 101 Ga. App. 102, 112 S.E.2d 789 (1960); Cel-Ko Bldrs. & Developers, Inc. v. BX Corp., 136 Ga. App. 777, 222 S.E.2d 94 (1975); Perdue v. Tyler, 241 Ga. 299, 245 S.E.2d 276 (1978).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Power of court to prescribe rules of pleadings, practice, or procedure, 110 A.L.R. 22; 158 A.L.R. 705.
Right to counsel in contempt proceedings, 52 A.L.R.3d 1002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
McAlister v. Abam-Samson, 733 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
McAlister v. Abam-Samson, 733 S.E.2d 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 15-1-5 (“The rules of the respective courts, legally adopted and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or of this state, or the laws thereof, are binding and must be observed.”
Wolf Creek Landfill, LLC v. Twiggs Cnty., 786 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 15-1-5 (“The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall not be changed in any way whatsoever by contract between parties, and any change in such limitations made by any contracts stipulation whatsoever shall be absolutely null and void, the object of this section being to…”
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 583 S.E.2d 852 (Ga. 2003).
· cites it 2× “We agree with appellants that the record is utterly devoid of any indication that the procedure in OCGA § 15-9-13 was followed here in order to authorize the superior court judge to sit over the probate of the decedent’s will. No written order was entered pursuant to UPCR 3 for…”
Langley v. Mp Spring Lake, LLC., 813 S.E.2d 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 15-1-5 ("The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall not be changed in any way whatsoever by contract between parties, and any change in such limitations made by any contracts stipulation whatsoever shall be absolutely null and void[.”
Gilbert v. Decker, 299 S.E.2d 65 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Gilbert enumerates as error the grant of summary judgment to Decker based upon his non-compliance with Local Rule 21. “The rules of the respective courts, legally adopted and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or of this state, or the laws thereof, are…”
Davis v. Gaona, 396 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Appellant notes that under OCGA §§ 15-1-5 and 9-11-83 local courts have the power to make local rules.”
James M. Lovell v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-1-5. “However, if the application of the local court rule contravenes a statute, the local rule must yield to the statute.”
David McAlister v. Edith Abam-Samson (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “11 See OCGA § 15-1-5 (“The rules of the respective courts, legally adopted and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States or of this state, or the laws thereof, are binding and must be observed.”
Pamela Langley v. Mp Spring Lake, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 15-1-5 (“The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall not be changed in any way whatsoever by contract between parties, and any change in such limitations made by any contracts stipulation whatsoever shall be absolutely null and void[.”
Bpg Inspection, LLC v. Jessique Omstead (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
“§ 15-1-5 (“The limitations prescribed in this chapter shall not be changed in any way whatsoever by contract between parties, and any change in such limitations made by any contracts stipulation whatsoever shall be absolutely null and void, the object of this section being to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.