O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-7-43 (2019)

Applicability of rules of practice

✓ 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) The general laws and rules of appellate practice and procedure which are applicable to cases appealed from the superior courts of this state shall be applicable to and govern appeals from the state courts.

(b) The general laws and rules of practice, pleading, procedure, and evidence which are applicable to the superior courts of this state shall be applicable to and govern in the state courts.

(c) The general laws and rules applicable to the execution and enforcement of judgments in the superior courts of this state shall be applicable to and govern in the state courts.

History

Code 1981, § 15-7-43, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1419, § 2.

Annotations

Cross references. - Appeals to Supreme Court or Court of Appeals generally, § 5-6-1 et seq. Civil practice and

procedure generally, §§ 9-10-1 et seq., 9-11-1 et seq. Criminal procedure generally, § 17-1-1 et seq. Uniform State Court Rules.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Speedy trial provisions. - As subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 15-7-43, enacted in 1983, incorporates the speedy trial pro-

visions of O.C.G.A. § 17-7-170 by reference, those provisions supersede a 1981 local law provision entitling a defendant

in a state court to discharge and acquittal if no trial is had at the term when the demand is made or within the next two succeeding regular terms thereafter. Majia v. State, 174 Ga. App. 432, 330 S.E.2d 171, aff ’d, 254 Ga. 660, 333 S.E.2d 834 (1985); Parks v. State, 239 Ga. App. 333, 521 S.E.2d 370 (1999). Practice and procedure rules for the state courts as set forth in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 15-7-43 incorporate by reference the speedy trial provisions of O.C.G.A. § 17-7-170. Proveaux v. State, 198 Ga. App. 119, 401 S.E.2d 12 (1990). Appeal of filing fee. - Although a store patron in a slip and fall case failed to file the fee required by O.C.G.A. § 15-6-77.3(b), made applicable to the state court by O.C.G.A. § 15-7-43(a), the state court properly chose to file the notice of appeal and deal with the fee thereafter, in line with the Supreme Court’s admonition that courts engage in more expeditious handling of cases involving minor procedural errors. Pirkle v. QuikTrip Corp., 325 Ga. App. 597, 754 S.E.2d 387 (2014). Cited in Martin v. Prior Tire Co., 122

Ga. App. 637, 178 S.E.2d 306 (1970); Charles v. Segars, 127 Ga. App. 333, 193 S.E.2d 564 (1972); Bell v. Stocks, 128 Ga. App. 799, 198 S.E.2d 209 (1973); Nat’l Health Servs., Inc. v. Townsend, 130 Ga. App. 700, 204 S.E.2d 299 (1974); Beneficial Std. Life Ins. Co. v. Usalavage, 136 Ga. App. 328, 221 S.E.2d 457 (1975); Shannondoah, Inc. v. Smith, 137 Ga. App. 378, 224 S.E.2d 465 (1976); Salvador v. Wals, 139 Ga. App. 362, 228 S.E.2d 384 (1976); Gooden v. Blanton, 140 Ga. App. 612, 231 S.E.2d 541 (1976); Redding v. Commonwealth of Am., Inc., 143 Ga. App. 215, 237 S.E.2d 689 (1977); Sewell v. Leifer, 144 Ga. App. 36, 240 S.E.2d 584 (1977); State v. Ramsey, 147 Ga. App. 150, 248 S.E.2d 289 (1978); Servisco, Inc. v. R.B.M. of Atlanta, Inc., 147 Ga. App. 671, 250 S.E.2d 10 (1978); Holland v. State, 151 Ga. App. 189, 259 S.E.2d 187 (1979); Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Friedman, 156 Ga. App. 880, 275 S.E.2d 817 (1981); L & L Elec. Serv., Inc. v. L.K. Comstock & Co., 168 Ga. App. 780, 310 S.E.2d 557 (1983); Jordan v. Atlanta Neighborhood Hous. Servs., Inc., 169 Ga. App. 600, 313 S.E.2d 787 (1984).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Majia v. State, 330 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Majia v. State, 330 S.E.2d 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although local law may determine trial terms, OCGA § 15-7-40, the general laws and rules of practice, pleading, procedure, and evidence which are applicable to the superior courts of this State also apply to and govern the state courts.”

Pirkle v. Quiktrip Corp., 754 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-7-43 (a). Appellant refers to “James McNealy” in his brief.”

Phillips v. Jackson, Judge, 877 S.E.2d 185 (Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)-(b) (authorizing interlocutory appeals from certain judgments and rulings of superior courts and “other courts or tribunals from which appeals are authorized by the Constitution and laws of this state”); OCGA § 15-7-43 (a) (“The general laws and rules of…”

Slater v. Spence, 540 S.E.2d 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Slaters had six months from the date of voluntary dismissal to refile the complaint if they wanted to have the second filing considered a renewal of the first action and thus timely.”

Parks v. State, 521 S.E.2d 370 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-7-43 (b). Although OCGA § 15-7-1 et seq.”

L & L Elec. Serv., Inc. v. L. K. Comstock & Co., 310 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-7-43 (Code Ann. § 24-2114a); Salvador v.”

Proveaux v. State, 401 S.E.2d 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “If the State fails to try the defendant within these two terms of court, the accused “shall be absolutely discharged and acquitted of the offense charged in the indictment or accusation.”

Jordan v. Atlanta Neighborhood Hous. Servs., Inc., 313 S.E.2d 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-7-1 (now OCGA § 15-7-43 (b) (Code Ann. § 24-2114a), effective July 1,1983); see Smith v.”

Carlos Ross Pirkle v. Quiktrip Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-7-43 (a). 2 to be kept on file, and a certificate of the clerk, entered upon the paper at the time it is filed, is the best evidence of such filing.”

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.