State courts retain jurisdiction.

- Superior, state, and municipal courts share concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor traffic offenses; thus, the defendant's plea in bar in state court contesting jurisdiction over the defendant's misdemeanor traffic violations was properly denied. Govert v. State, 257 Ga. App. 80, 570 S.E.2d 393 (2002).

Superior courts retain jurisdiction.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-13-29 does not take away jurisdiction from the superior court to try misdemeanor violations of traffic laws and vest such jurisdiction in courts of ordinary (now probate court) or municipal courts as the case might be exclusively as against the superior courts. Smith v. State, 62 Ga. App. 733, 9 S.E.2d 714 (1940); Allen v. State, 85 Ga. App. 887, 70 S.E.2d 543 (1952).

Meaning of "exclusive."

- Term "exclusive" as used in Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 558, § 11 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-13-29) is intended merely to exclude jurisdiction of a recorder's court in cases in which the offense is committed outside of a municipal corporation, and in turn the recorder's court is given exclusive jurisdiction as against the probate court over offenses committed within the limits of a municipality. 1963-65 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 300.

Power of probate court not prohibited because of municipal court existence.

- O.C.G.A. § 40-13-29 does not prohibit the probate court from exercising state judicial power in any county simply because of the existence of a municipal court within the corporate limits of a municipal corporation within that county. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U89-30.

Probate court may exercise power within limits of municipal corporation.

- Probate court may exercise state judicial power over misdemeanor traffic offenses occurring within the corporate limits of a municipal corporation when the charter of the municipal corporation authorizes a municipal court but no such court is in existence. The arresting officer in a misdemeanor traffic case is responsible for returning those charges to the proper court with jurisdiction to hear the matter, but, if the citation is erroneously returned to the incorrect court, that court should promptly act to transfer the matter to a court with jurisdiction to consider the charges. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U89-30.

Probate court lacks jurisdiction if there is a municipal court.

- Judge of the probate court does not have jurisdiction over a traffic violation occurring inside the limits of a city, if there is a recorder's court or any other municipal court. 1963-65 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 303.

Concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts.

- While the jurisdiction of these courts are exclusive, each of the other courts inside the territorial limits described, this jurisdiction is concurrent of that of the superior court of the county involved. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 64.

Superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction in cases arising under O.C.G.A. § 40-13-29. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 71.

Court's waiver of jurisdiction not permitted.

- Since the General Assembly vested in the judge of recorder's court in each municipality the exclusive jurisdiction of cases arising inside municipality's corporate limits, the judge of the municipal court cannot vest that jurisdiction in another court by merely waiving the court's own jurisdiction. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 61.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §§ 12, 14, 65 et seq., 98 et seq.