O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-2-16 (2019)

Reversal and affirmance; minutes and reports to show concurrences and dissents

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In all cases decided by the Supreme Court, the concurrence of a majority of the Justices shall be essential to a judgment of reversal. If the Justices are evenly divided, the judgment of the court below shall stand affirmed. In all cases decided by the court, with at least a quorum but less than nine Justices, the concurrence of at least five shall be essential to the rendition of a judgment.

(b) Both the minutes and the printed official reports shall show how many and which Justices concurred in each judgment rendered and which, if any, dissented therefrom.

History

Ga. L. 1896, p. 42, § 5; Civil Code 1910, § 6116; Code 1933, § 24-4015; Ga. L. 1983, p. 956, § 3; Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 4-3/HB 927.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 1-1/HB 927, not codified by the General

Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016.’ ’’

Law reviews. - For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 205 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 6-1611, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Trial court affirmed if Supreme Court evenly divided. - In case of a decision by entire court of six justices, if the court is evenly divided, the judgment of the trial court stands affirmed by operation of law. Inter-City Coach Lines v. City of Atlanta, 170 Ga. 905, 154 S.E. 352 (1930) (decided under Ga. Const. 1877, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VIII). ‘‘Full bench rule’’ repealed. - ‘‘Full

bench rule’’ wherein unanimous decisions of Supreme Court could not be overruled except by unanimous decisions has been repealed; stability and certainty in law are desirable, but when a majority of the court determines that stability must give way to justice, then justice prevails. Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 6-1611). Cited in Irby v. Allen & Co., 161 Ga. 858, 131 S.E. 910 (1926); Ward v. Big Apple Super Mkts. of Bolton Rd., Inc., 223 Ga. 756, 158 S.E.2d 396 (1967).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: Cobb Cnty. v. Jones, 345 S.E.2d 917 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cobb Cnty. v. Jones, 345 S.E.2d 917 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-2-16 (a). The rule is different in the Court of Appeals.”
Willie Jean Thomas v. Tannis Alligood (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 15-2-16 (a) (“In all cases decided by the Supreme Court, the concurrence of a majority of the Justices shall be essential to a judgment of reversal.”
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.