O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-181 (2019)

Extension of time limit for argument after application therefor

✓ 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

If counsel on either side, before argument begins, applies to the court for extension of the time prescribed for argument and states in his place or on oath, in the discretion of the court, that he or they cannot do the case justice within the time prescribed and that it will require for that purpose additional time, stating how much additional time will be necessary, the court shall grant such extension of time as may seem reasonable and proper.

History

Ga. L. 1924, p. 75, § 4; Code 1933, § 81-1008.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Extension erroneously denied. - In a personal injury case, the trial court erred in denying, under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 13.2, the injured party’s request for an extension of time for closing argument

because the request was timely and was authorized by O.C.G.A. § 9-10-181, which took precedence over the rule. Rouse v. Polott, 274 Ga. App. 226, 617 S.E.2d 185, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 708 (2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Prejudicial effect of trial court’s denial, or equivalent, of counsel’s right to argue case, 38 A.L.R.2d 1396.

Am. Jur. 2d. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 398 et seq. 75A Am. Jur. 2d Trial, § 450 et seq. C.J.S. 88 C.J.S., Trial, § 292.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2008 · leading case: McClellan v. Evans, 669 S.E.2d 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McClellan v. Evans, 669 S.E.2d 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “226, 227-228 (1) ( 617 SE2d 185 ) (2005) (where counsel made a timely request to extend closing argument to two hours, citing OCGA § 9-10-181 as authority, the trial court erred in denying the request).”

Rouse v. Polott, 617 S.E.2d 185 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 9-10-181 provides: If counsel on either side, before argument begins, applies to the court for extension of the time prescribed for argument and states in his place or on oath, in the discretion of the court, that he or they cannot do the case justice within the time…”

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.