Editor's notes.

- In light of the reenactment of this Title, effective January 1, 2013, the reader is advised to consult the annotations following Code Sections24-8-803 and24-8-804 for notes on hearsay exceptions and their applicability. In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-1 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Double hearsay inadmissible in property action.

- Trial court did not err in granting a property owner's motion in limine to exclude evidence that a father of a record title holder's descendant told the descendant that the father told the owner's brother that the brother could not build a house on property because the evidence was double hearsay and inadmissible. DeFoor v. DeFoor, 290 Ga. 540, 722 S.E.2d 697 (2012) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 24-3-1).

Even if the investigator's report was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the summary of the statement of a student was not subject to an exception and, thus, both parts of the hearsay were not covered as required. Tuggle v. Rose, 333 Ga. App. 431, 773 S.E.2d 485 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1862, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 813 (Ga. 2015).