Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 5-6-49 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 5-6-49 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 5-6-49

TITLE 5 APPEAL AND ERROR

Section 6. Certiorari and Appeals to Appellate Courts Generally, 5-6-1 through 5-6-51.

ARTICLE 2 APPELLATE PRACTICE

5-6-49. Bills of exceptions, exceptions pendente lite, assignments of error abolished; contents of motions for new trial and for j.n.o.v

  1. Bills of exceptions, exceptions pendente lite, assignments of error, and all rules relating thereto are abolished.
  2. Motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict need not set out portions of the record or transcript of evidence and it shall not be necessary that the grounds thereof be complete in themselves or be approved by the court; provided, however, that the motions must be sufficiently definite to inform the opposite party of the contention of the movant.

(Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, § 3.)

Cross references.

- Rulings on motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motions for new trial, § 9-11-50.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Time limitation for grant of new trial on unspecified grounds on court's own motion.

- Court may not grant new trial on unspecified ground on own motion after more than 30 days from entry of judgment and after expiration of term. Darby v. Commercial Bank, 135 Ga. App. 462, 218 S.E.2d 252 (1975), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. Telecable of Columbus, Inc., 140 Ga. App. 755, 232 S.E.2d 100 (1976).

Issue preserved for review.

- Claim on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to consider a request for a nonjury bench trial in a criminal matter was preserved for review despite the fact that the counsel did not state an exception or file an objection to the trial court's ruling, as the "bill of exceptions" requirement was abolished a long time ago pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-6-49(a); the trial court did not err, as there was no requirement that a defendant be given a nonjury trial upon a request and nothing prevented the trial courts from ensuring that the defendants were given the defendants' constitutional jury trial right pursuant to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XI. Lindo v. State, 278 Ga. App. 228, 628 S.E.2d 665 (2006).

Given that once the trial court addressed the defendant's motion regarding sequestration of the lead investigating officer and the trial court issued a ruling, the defendant did not need to further object to the ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Stafford v. State, 288 Ga. App. 733, 655 S.E.2d 221 (2007), cert. denied, No. S08C0654, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 489 (Ga. 2008).

Cited in Murcherson v. State, 112 Ga. App. 299, 145 S.E.2d 58 (1965); Bishop v. Lamkin, 221 Ga. 691, 146 S.E.2d 769 (1966); Wright v. Wright, 222 Ga. 777, 152 S.E.2d 363 (1966); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Merritt, 124 Ga. App. 42, 183 S.E.2d 73 (1971); Brown v. Rooks, 139 Ga. App. 770, 229 S.E.2d 548 (1976); State v. Eubanks, 239 Ga. 483, 238 S.E.2d 38 (1977); Hienrichsen v. Harris, 155 Ga. App. 810, 273 S.E.2d 213 (1980); Turner v. National Bank, 160 Ga. App. 165, 286 S.E.2d 500 (1981); Hiers-Wright Assocs. v. Manufacturers Hanover Mtg. Corp., 182 Ga. App. 732, 356 S.E.2d 903 (1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

2 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Appeal and Error, § 399.

C.J.S.

- 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 591.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 5-6-49

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Felix v. State, 523 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 199 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 18, 1999 | 271 Ga. 534, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 3793

...Freeman Leverett, "1966 Amendments to the Appellate Procedure Act of 1965," 2 Ga. State Bar J., 433, 443 (1966). To this end, the General Assembly expressly abolished bills of exceptions, exceptions pendente lite, assignments of error and all rules relating thereto (OCGA § 5-6-49), and mandated that the Act "be liberally construed so as to bring about a decision on the merits of every case appealed and to avoid dismissal of any case or refusal to consider any points raised therein, except as may be specifically referred to in [the Act]." OCGA § 5-6-30....
Copy

First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Roberts, 187 Ga. 472 (Ga. 1939).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 14, 1939 | 1 S.E.2d 12

Copy

Plaza Props., Ltd. v. Prime Bus. Investments, Inc., 538 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 30, 2000 | 273 Ga. 97, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 4016

...OCGA § 9-11-46(a) dispensed with the unnecessarily formal ritual of excepting to a ruling after a trial court has taken "action contrary to that requested by a party or overrules an objection made by a party." [4] It has been stated that Georgia, through OCGA §§ 9-11-46 and 5-6-49, has "abolished the common law's requirement of a `bill of exceptions,'" [5] and that "[o]nce the trial court has addressed a party's motion or objection and has issued a ruling, the party adversely affected need not then further object or `ex...
Copy

Davie v. State, 463 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 30, 1995 | 265 Ga. 800

...The case was docketed in this court on March 10, 1995 and submitted for decision without oral argument on May 1, 1995. [2] Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [3] Pulliam v. State, 236 Ga. 460, 224 S.E.2d 8 (1976). [4] See O.C.G.A. § 5-6-49; see also 1 McCormick on Evidence § 52 at 209 (4th ed....
Copy

Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 18, 1999 | 523 S.E.2d 1

...Freeman Leverett, “1966 Amendments to the Appellate Procedure Act of 1965,” 2 Ga. State Bar J., 433, 443 (1966). To this end, the General Assembly expressly abolished bills of exceptions, exceptions pendente lite, assignments of error and all rules relating thereto (OCGA § 5-6-49), and mandated that the Act “be liberally construed so as to bring about a decision on the merits of every case appealed and to avoid dismissal of any case or refusal to consider any points raised therein, except as may be specifically re...