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

O.C.G.A. § 5-6-1 (2019)

Appearance before court of interested third parties

✓ 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

When a case is set for a hearing before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals and there are parties besides the plaintiffs and defendants, whether shown by the record or not, who have a direct interest in its result, upon the interest being made to appear the court shall allow the other parties to appear by counsel on equal terms with the parties directly before the court.

History

(Ga. L. 1870, p. 47, § 5; Code 1873, § 4275; Code 1882, § 4275; Civil Code 1895, § 5581; Civil Code 1910, § 6196; Code 1933, § 6-1506.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Reed v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, 181 Ga. App. 750, 353

S.E.2d 523 (1987); In re Stroh, 272 Ga. 894, 534 S.E.2d 790 (2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review, § 239.

C.J.S. - 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 870.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 543 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 543 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 5-6-1 et seq. Cf. Stubbs v. Carpenter, 271 Ga.”
In Re Allan G. Stroh Et Al., 534 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 8× “The foster parents responded that they have proceeded as amicus curiae and should be permitted to appear *791 as interested third parties under OCGA § 5-6-1. It is this Court's prerogative to prescribe rules regarding certiorari.”
Reed v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 353 S.E.2d 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff enumerates as error the trial court’s granting summary judgment to defendant Smyrna Hospital and states in her brief that the sole question before this court is whether or not the “captain of the ship doctrine” absolves defendant hospital for the negligent acts of its…”
Miller v. Rieser, 446 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 5-6-1. No one has a greater interest than the child who is the subject of the custody dispute and whose future is at stake.”
Danbert v. North Georgia Land Ventures, LLC, 697 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “This Court granted UCB’s request to file a brief of interested party pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-1. This opinion will continue to refer to NGLV as the appellee.”
Carr v. Farmer, 445 S.E.2d 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “, pursuant to its motion under OCGA § 5-6-1, was allowed to appear before this court as an interested third party.”
State v. Jerry Campbell (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 5-6-1 (a) (6). In Sumlin, our Supreme Court held that an order granting a mistrial more than two months after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty was void because “the time for granting a mistrial ha[d] passed.”
State v. Jerry Campbell (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 5-6-1 (a) (6). In Sumlin, our Supreme Court held that an order granting a mistrial more than two months after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty was void because “the time for granting a mistrial ha[d] passed.”
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.