JUDICIAL DECISIONS

In cases where there are coplaintiffs or codefendants, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-180 provides for two hours of argument per side, not per party. Mansell v. Benson Chevrolet Co., 165 Ga. App. 568, 302 S.E.2d 114 (1983).

Words, "shall be limited in their arguments to two hours on a side," mean that counsel shall not be limited to less than two hours on a side. Lovett v. Sandersville R.R., 199 Ga. 238, 33 S.E.2d 905 (1945).

No conflict with Superior Court Rule 13.1. - There is no conflict between Superior Court Rule 13.1, limiting argument to one hour per side, and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-180; the trial court could limit closing argument at trial to one hour per side where there was no request for additional time as authorized by Superior Court Rule 13.2. McIntyre v. Pope, 215 Ga. App. 600, 451 S.E.2d 110 (1994).

There is an inconsistency between O.C.G.A. § 9-10-180 and Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 13, regarding the time allowed for closing argument, and, to the extent that requirements of the rule conflict with the Georgia Code, the rule must yield, but there is no irreconcilable conflict between the two because of the authority of a trial court to grant an extension of time under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 13.2. Rouse v. Polott, 274 Ga. App. 226, 617 S.E.2d 185 (2005).

Trial judge has no discretion to limit argument to one hour per side.

- Under this section, counsel in civil actions originating in the superior court are entitled as a matter of right to two hours on a side in which to argue the case, and the trial judge has no discretion to limit the argument to one hour on a side. Lovett v. Sandersville R.R., 72 Ga. App. 692, 34 S.E.2d 664 (1945); Henry & Hutchinson, Inc. v. Slack, 91 Ga. App. 353, 85 S.E.2d 620 (1955) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-180).

Judge has no discretion to limit argument in capital felony case to less than two hours.

- Counsel in a capital felony case are entitled, as a matter of right, to two hours on a side in which to argue their case, and the trial judge has no discretion in such a case to limit argument to a shorter period of time. Kittles v. State, 74 Ga. App. 383, 39 S.E.2d 766 (1946).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 75A Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 547 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 88 C.J.S., Trial, §§ 288 et seq., 292.

ALR.

- Prejudicial effect of trial court's denial, or equivalent, of counsel's right to argue case, 38 A.L.R.2d 1396.

Propriety of trial court order limiting time for opening or closing argument in civil case - state cases, 71 A.L.R.4th 130.

Prejudicial effect, in civil case, of communications between court officials or attendants and jurors, 31 A.L.R.5th 572.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-10-180

Total Results: 2 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

McClure v. Gower, 385 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 1989).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 26, 1989 | 259 Ga. 678

...Garrison v. Wilcoxson, 11 Ga. 154, 159 (3) (1852).] In our general statutory provisions concerning civil practice and procedure in superior courts, counsel are entitled, as a matter of right, to two hours on a side in which to argue their case. OCGA § 9-10-180; Lovett v....

Copy

Wilson v. Wilson, 596 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 27, 2004 | 277 Ga. 801

...199(3), 56 S.E.2d 292 (1949) (bench trial); Early v. Oliver & Norton, 63 Ga. 11, 18(2) (1879). Compare Jolly v. Catoosa County Bd. of Educ., 171 Ga. 193(2), 154 S.E. 788 (1930). Under the intermediate approach, the right to closing argument may be limited with respect to time, as in OCGA § 9-10-180, and content so as to preclude improper argument, but trial courts may not totally deny the right....

Syfert Injury Law Firm

2018 Georgia Code 9-10-180 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 10. Civil Practice and Procedure Generally, 9-10-1 through 9-10-204.

ARTICLE 8 ARGUMENT AND CONDUCT OF COUNSEL

9-10-180. Time limit for arguments.