O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-153 (2019)

Grounds for continuance - Service in National Guard; oath of party or statement of counsel

✓ 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

It shall be the duty of any judge of a court of this state, on or without motion, to continue any case in the court when the case is reached and any party thereto or his leading counsel is absent from the court by reason of his service in the armed forces when such service directly prevents his attendance in court or by reason of his attendance as a member of the National Guard upon any duty prescribed by the Governor or the adjutant general, unless the party, in the absence of his leading counsel, or the leading counsel, in the absence of the party, on the call of the case, announces ready for trial. If counsel is absent it shall be necessary for his client to make oath that he cannot safely go to trial without the absent counsel; and, if the party plaintiff or defendant is absent, his counsel shall state in his place that he cannot safely go to trial without the client.

History

Ga. L. 1925, p. 149, § 1; Code 1933, § 81-1406; Ga. L. 1991, p. 404, § 1.

Annotations

Cross references. Corresponding provision relating to criminal procedure, § 17-8-31.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Motion for continuance properly denied. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an injured party’s motion for a continuance as the injured party did not attach the military orders to the motion and the counsel’s assertion that the injured party had received orders

to report for military duty were not evidence of any service requirements. King v. Irvin, 273 Ga. App. 64, 614 S.E.2d 190, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 414 (2005), cert. denied, No. S05C1399, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 585 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 17 Am. Jur. 2d, Continuance, §§ 10 et seq. C.J.S. 17 C.J.S., Continuances, §§ 44, 53. ALR. Effect of war on litigation pending at the time of its outbreak, 137 A.L.R. 1335; 147 A.L.R. 1298; 148 A.L.R. 1384; 149 A.L.R. 1451; 149 A.L.R. 1452; 150 A.L.R. 1417; 150 A.L.R. 1418; 151 A.L.R. 1453; 152 A.L.R. 1450; 154 A.L.R. 1447. Validity and construction of war legisla-

tion in nature of moratory statute, 147 A.L.R. 1311; 148 A.L.R. 1388; 149 A.L.R. 1457; 150 A.L.R. 1400; 151 A.L.R. 1456; 152 A.L.R. 1452; 153 A.L.R. 1422; 154 A.L.R. 1448; 155 A.L.R. 1452; 156 A.L.R. 1450; 157 A.L.R. 1450; 158 A.L.R. 1450. Appealability of order granting or refusing stay or continuance under federal civil relief act because of litigant’s military service, 34 A.L.R.2d 1149. Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Acts, 35 A.L.R. Fed. 649.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: King v. Irvin, 614 S.E.2d 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

King v. Irvin, 614 S.E.2d 190 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “” And OCGA § 9-10-153 states: It shall be the duty of any judge [,] .”

State v. Walter Byrd (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “As noted by Byrd, the State likely meant to refer to OCGA §§ 9-10-153, 38-2-279, neither of which address military orders in the context of criminal matters.”

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.