Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-11-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 11. Civil Practice Act, 9-11-1 through 9-11-133.

ARTICLE 1 SCOPE OF RULES AND FORM OF ACTION

9-11-1. Scope of chapter; construction.

This chapter governs the procedure in all courts of record of this state in all actions of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity, with the exceptions stated in Code Section 9-11-81. This chapter shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. This chapter shall also apply to courts which are not courts of record to the extent that no other rule governing a particular practice or procedure of such courts is prescribed by general or local law applicable to such courts.

(Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 1.)

U.S. Code.

- For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, and annotations pertaining thereto, see 28 U.S.C.

Law reviews.

- For article advocating specialized pleadings and procedures to meet needs of juvenile court practice, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1972). For article surveying developments in Georgia trial practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1981). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982). For article discussing the scope of the "Civil Practice Act," see 19 Ga. St. B.J. 130 (1983). For article surveying trial practice and procedure in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 413 (1985). For article, "Business Associations," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

General Consideration

Divorce proceedings.

- Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is applicable to divorce proceedings. Price v. Price, 243 Ga. 4, 252 S.E.2d 402 (1979).

Administrative procedure.

- Motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment are functionless and inappropriate in superior court when that court is sitting as an appellate court under authority of the Administrative Procedure Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 50). Walker v. Harden, 129 Ga. App. 782, 201 S.E.2d 483 (1973).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is not applicable to proceedings under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 50). Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs. v. Daniels, 137 Ga. App. 706, 224 S.E.2d 820 (1976).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) has no application to judicial review of administrative agency decisions under Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 20 (see now O.C.G.A. § 50-13-19). Walker v. Harden, 129 Ga. App. 782, 201 S.E.2d 483 (1973); Hewes v. Cooler, 169 Ga. App. 762, 315 S.E.2d 276 (1984).

Workers' compensation.

- Provisions of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) with regard to taking depositions are not applicable to workers' compensation claims unless made so by statute pertaining specifically to workers' compensation claims. National Biscuit Co. v. Martin, 225 Ga. 198, 167 S.E.2d 140 (1969).

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(c) has not been incorporated into the Georgia Workers' Compensation Act, O.C.G.A. § 34-9-1 et seq. McLendon v. Advertising That Works, 292 Ga. App. 677, 665 S.E.2d 370 (2008).

Uninsured Motorist Act, O.C.G.A. § 33-7-11(d), which gives insurance companies wide latitude in deciding whether to join a lawsuit against an uninsured motorist and requiring uninsured motorist carriers to follow the same rules of civil procedure that apply to every other litigant does not limit or impede an insurer's ability under that statutory framework to opt-in or opt-out of litigation. Kelly v. Harris, 329 Ga. App. 752, 766 S.E.2d 146 (2014).

Habeas corpus proceeding.

- Habeas court's order denying an inmate's verified petition, which asserted that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, was reversed as the allegations contained in that petition served as sufficient evidence to support the inmate's claim that counsel failed to file a notice of appeal after being instructed by the inmate to do so. Rolland v. Martin, 281 Ga. 190, 637 S.E.2d 23 (2006).

In rem quiet title actions.

- Default judgment against owners in a quiet title action based on the owner's failure to answer was improper because, once the in rem proceeding was instituted, the trial court was required, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 23-3-63, to submit the matter to a special master, and a special master was never appointed such that service could have properly been completed pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq.; since the Quiet Title Act provided specific rules of practice and procedure with respect to an in rem quiet title action against all the world, the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, was inapplicable. Woodruff v. Morgan County, 284 Ga. 651, 670 S.E.2d 415 (2008).

Civil procedure rules not adequate substitute for substantive constitutional rights of in personam forfeiture proceedings.

- In an in personam forfeiture proceeding, pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-7(m), a trial court erred by finding that the civil procedural rules set forth in the Georgia Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, were an adequate substitute for the substantive constitutional rights to which the property owners were entitled. As a result, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that § 16-14-7(m) was unconstitutional because the statute deprived in personam forfeiture defendants of the safeguards of criminal procedure guaranteed by the United States and Georgia Constitutions. Cisco v. State, 285 Ga. 656, 680 S.E.2d 831 (2009).

Chapter not applicable to appellate courts.

- Scope of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is procedure in the trial courts of record, and it does not deal with powers of appellate courts. Buckhead Doctors' Bldg., Inc. v. Oxford Fin. Cos., 116 Ga. App. 503, 157 S.E.2d 767 (1967).

Construction with court rules.

- Upon reading the rules within the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, in para materia with Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 24.6(B), the trial court was authorized to grant a divorce well after 30 days from the time an answer would have been due; hence, the trial court did not err in denying a wife's motion to set that judgment aside. Hammack v. Hammack, 281 Ga. 202, 635 S.E.2d 752 (2006).

"No cure" rule contravenes chapter.

- "No cure" rule, requiring party to dismiss present action, pay costs in that and all previous actions, and then refile the same action, places an unnecessary burden on trial courts, delays determination of action on its merits, and increases expense to courts and litigants; hence, that rule contravenes the purpose of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) as set out in Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 1 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-11-1) to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." McLanahan v. Keith, 239 Ga. 94, 236 S.E.2d 52 (1977), but see Couch v. Wallace, 249 Ga. 568, 292 S.E.2d 405 (1982); Little v. Walker, 250 Ga. 854, 301 S.E.2d 639 (1983).

Want of prosecution rule.

- Regardless of efficiency of local two-year want of prosecution rule, the General Assembly has set forth a five-year rule for all actions of a civil nature in all courts whose practice and procedure is governed by this chapter, so that for those courts the local two-year rule would be conflicting. Johnson v. Barnes, 237 Ga. 502, 229 S.E.2d 70 (1976).

Appeal from a decision of the policemen's pension board should be taken in accordance with the procedures provided for in statute (Ga. L. 1953 (Nov.-Dec. Sess.), p. 2707). Simmons v. Board of Trustees, 167 Ga. App. 511, 306 S.E.2d 759 (1983).

Requirements of the Condemnation Act override all provisions of the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, in conflict with the Condemnation Act's special purposes. DOT v. Defoor, 173 Ga. App. 218, 325 S.E.2d 863 (1984).

Section invoked to make error harmless when not involving genuine issue of material fact.

- Trial court's failure to consider two timely filed depositions when ruling on a motion for summary judgment was manifestly harmless since there was nothing in the depositions which raised a genuine issue of material fact; thus, to reverse and remand the case under these circumstances would only serve to prolong litigation and undermine the policy in favor of "the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Miller Grading Contractors v. Georgia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 247 Ga. 730, 279 S.E.2d 442 (1981).

Court of Appeals will not reverse a grant of summary judgment, even if it appears that the trial court erroneously failed to consider a portion of the record, unless the appellant can show that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Holtzendorf v. Seckinger, 195 Ga. App. 177, 393 S.E.2d 13 (1990).

There is no requirement generally that a party litigant show what deposition would prove before the litigant is allowed to take the deposition. Brown Transp. Corp. v. Truett, 174 Ga. App. 189, 329 S.E.2d 521 (1985).

Construction of pleadings.

- Even though it is true that, when the sufficiency of a complaint is questioned, the pleadings must be construed in a light most favorable to a plaintiff, the trial court correctly dismissed the defendant business from the terminated employees' lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction when the pleadings so construed did not demonstrate that the business committed a tort in Georgia. Balmer v. Elan Corp., 261 Ga. App. 543, 583 S.E.2d 131 (2003), aff'd, 278 Ga. 227, 599 S.E.2d 158 (2004).

Insufficiency of service.

- Trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus; even assuming that a requirement existed that the district attorney had to be served with a copy of the application, the state failed to timely raise the argument that it applied since it did not set forth the argument either in its answer to the petitioner's application or by motion filed before or simultaneously with the answer, and thus the defense of insufficiency of service was waived. State v. Jaramillo, 279 Ga. 691, 620 S.E.2d 798 (2005).

Cited in Bray v. Central Chevrolet, Inc., 118 Ga. App. 493, 164 S.E.2d 286 (1968); Woodall v. First Nat'l Bank, 118 Ga. App. 440, 164 S.E.2d 361 (1968); Bragg v. Bragg, 225 Ga. 494, 170 S.E.2d 29 (1969); Hines v. Wingo, 120 Ga. App. 614, 171 S.E.2d 905 (1969); Times-Journal, Inc. v. Jonquil Broadcasting Co., 226 Ga. 673, 177 S.E.2d 64 (1970); Taylor v. Donaldson, 227 Ga. 496, 181 S.E.2d 340 (1971); Gresham v. Symmers, 227 Ga. 616, 182 S.E.2d 764 (1971); Koehler v. Massell, 229 Ga. 359, 191 S.E.2d 830 (1972); Boyer v. King, 129 Ga. App. 690, 200 S.E.2d 906 (1973); Zachery v. Geiger Fin. Co., 130 Ga. App. 243, 202 S.E.2d 689 (1973); Nat'l Health Servs., Inc. v. Townsend, 130 Ga. App. 700, 204 S.E.2d 299 (1974); Pate v. Milford A. Scott Real Estate Co., 132 Ga. App. 49, 207 S.E.2d 567 (1974); Yeargin v. Burleson, 132 Ga. App. 652, 209 S.E.2d 99 (1974); American Tire Co. v. Creamer, 132 Ga. App. 781, 209 S.E.2d 240 (1974); English v. Milby, 233 Ga. 7, 209 S.E.2d 603 (1974); Sikes v. Sikes, 233 Ga. 97, 209 S.E.2d 641 (1974); Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104, 210 S.E.2d 13 (1974); McMichael v. Georgia Power Co., 133 Ga. App. 593, 211 S.E.2d 632 (1974); Coppedge v. Columbus, 134 Ga. App. 5, 213 S.E.2d 144 (1975); Anderson v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 134 Ga. App. 931, 216 S.E.2d 719 (1975); Jernigan v. Collier, 234 Ga. 837, 218 S.E.2d 556 (1975); Sellers v. Home Furnishing Co., 235 Ga. 831, 222 S.E.2d 34 (1976); Liberty Forest Prods., Inc. v. Interstate Paper Corp., 138 Ga. App. 153, 225 S.E.2d 731 (1976); Leggett v. Benton Bros. Drayage & Storage Co., 138 Ga. App. 761, 227 S.E.2d 397 (1976); C & S Land, Transp. & Dev. Corp. v. Grubbs, 141 Ga. App. 393, 233 S.E.2d 486 (1977); Hall County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. Reed, 142 Ga. App. 556, 236 S.E.2d 532 (1977); Worthen v. Jones, 240 Ga. 388, 240 S.E.2d 842 (1977); Retail Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Seabrum, 240 Ga. 695, 242 S.E.2d 18 (1978); Roe v. Doe, 246 Ga. 138, 268 S.E.2d 901 (1980); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Nelson Conveyor & Mach. Co., 159 Ga. App. 13, 282 S.E.2d 670 (1981); Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank, 248 Ga. 407, 284 S.E.2d 6 (1981); Evans v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 159 Ga. App. 834, 285 S.E.2d 263 (1981); Financial Bldg. Consultants, Inc. v. American Druggists Ins. Co., 91 F.R.D. 62 (N.D. Ga. 1981); Orr v. Culpepper, 161 Ga. App. 801, 288 S.E.2d 898 (1982); Williams v. Lewis, 163 Ga. App. 729, 296 S.E.2d 81 (1982); Walker v. Little, 164 Ga. App. 423, 296 S.E.2d 636 (1982); Downey v. Downey, 250 Ga. 497, 299 S.E.2d 558 (1983); Hughey v. Emory Univ., 168 Ga. App. 239, 308 S.E.2d 558 (1983); Coates v. Mulji Motor Inn, Inc., 178 Ga. App. 208, 342 S.E.2d 488 (1986); Barone v. McRae & Holloway, 179 Ga. App. 812, 348 S.E.2d 320 (1986); Wheeler's, Inc. v. Wilson, 196 Ga. App. 622, 396 S.E.2d 790 (1990); Ga. Pines Cmty. Serv. Bd. v. Summerlin, 282 Ga. 339, 647 S.E.2d 566 (2007).

Courts to Which Chapter Applicable

Legislative authority to enact procedure for particular court.

- Legislature has specific constitutional authority for enacting special rules of procedure applicable only to a particular court. Critz Buick, Inc. v. Aliotta, 145 Ga. App. 805, 245 S.E.2d 56 (1978).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is a general law of this state and applies to all courts classified as courts of record herein. Electro-Kinetics Corp. v. Wilson, 122 Ga. App. 171, 176 S.E.2d 604 (1970).

Chapter controls over special laws in conflict therewith.

- Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9), being a general law relating to that classification of courts known as courts of record, must necessarily be controlling over any special law applicable to a particular court of record in a particular locality in conflict therewith. Electro-Kinetics Corp. v. Wilson, 122 Ga. App. 171, 176 S.E.2d 604 (1970).

When provision of special Act establishing court of record conflicts with a provision of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9), the Civil Practice Act controls. Pittman v. McKinney, 135 Ga. App. 192, 217 S.E.2d 446 (1975).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) applies only to courts specified in this section, as limited by Ga. L. 1967, p. 226, § 33 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-11-81) and as extended by Ga. L. 1970, p. 679, § 8, relating to state courts of counties. Martin v. Prior Tire Co., 122 Ga. App. 637, 178 S.E.2d 306 (1970).

Characteristics of court of record.

- Presence of the following characteristics is indicative that a particular court is a court of record: (1) the court has power to fine and imprison; (2) the court exercises the court's functions independently of the person of the magistrate; (3) the court proceeds according to the course of the common law; (4) the court has a seal; and (5) the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony, which rolls are called the record of the court and are of such high and supereminent authority that their truth is not to be called in question. DeKalb County v. Deason, 221 Ga. 237, 144 S.E.2d 446 (1965), answer conformed to, 113 Ga. App. 555, 149 S.E.2d 155 (1966).

Permanent record essential feature of court of record.

- One essential feature necessary to constitute a court of record is that a permanent record of the proceedings of the court must be made and kept, that is, a precise history of a suit from its commencement to its termination, including conclusions of law thereon drawn by the proper officer for the purpose of perpetuating the exact state of facts. DeKalb County v. Deason, 221 Ga. 237, 144 S.E.2d 446 (1965), answer conformed to, 113 Ga. App. 555, 149 S.E.2d 155 (1966).

State courts.

- All state courts having concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts to try misdemeanor cases by jury trial or having civil jurisdiction unlimited in amount with superior courts in all matters, with certain exceptions, became subject to rules of practice and procedure applicable to the superior courts as set forth in the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9). Marler v. C & S Bank, 239 Ga. 342, 236 S.E.2d 590 (1977).

Probate courts.

- Probate court is a court of record. Slocumb v. Ross, 119 Ga. App. 567, 168 S.E.2d 208 (1969).

Probate court is a court of record and thus is bound by the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9). Leathers v. Gilland, 141 Ga. App. 681, 234 S.E.2d 336 (1977).

Appeals to superior court from probate court.

- Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) generally governs in de novo investigations in superior court on appeal from probate court. McKnight v. Mitchell, 142 Ga. App. 344, 235 S.E.2d 763 (1977).

Juvenile courts.

- Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9), although not in itself applicable to juvenile courts, may be adopted as to procedures not specifically provided for in the Juvenile Code (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 15). In re L.L.W., 141 Ga. App. 32, 232 S.E.2d 378 (1977).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is not applicable in the juvenile courts unless its rules are adopted by the courts as to procedures not specifically provided for in the Juvenile Court Code (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 15). Crook v. Georgia Dep't of Human Resources, 137 Ga. App. 817, 224 S.E.2d 806 (1976).

Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) is not per se made applicable to juvenile courts, but its provisions may be adopted by a juvenile court as to procedures for which provision is not specifically made in the Juvenile Code (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 15). Ray v. Department of Human Resources, 155 Ga. App. 81, 270 S.E.2d 303 (1980).

Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County not court of record.

- In making the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) applicable only in courts of record, the General Assembly did not include Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, which court is not required to enroll nor does it enroll for permanent memorial its acts and proceedings. DeKalb County v. Deason, 221 Ga. 237, 144 S.E.2d 446 (1965), answer conformed to, 113 Ga. App. 555, 149 S.E.2d 155 (1966).

Conflicting local municipal court rule void.

- Local rule of the Municipal Court of Columbus (a court of record), which provides that if a party fails to file a demand for a trial by jury on or before 5:00 p.m. on the last business day before docket call, the right to a jury trial is "presumed waived" and the case is set down on the nonjury calendar, is in conflict with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-39, and, to the extent of the conflict, it is void. Raintree Farms, Inc. v. Stripping Ctr., Ltd., 166 Ga. App. 848, 305 S.E.2d 660 (1983).

Special master's award in condemnation proceeding.

- Trial court properly refused to dismiss a landowner's appeal on grounds that it failed to express dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the special master, as it provided the utility with sufficient notice under the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9, that the landowner was objecting to the valuation given on the property; moreover, in light of the interest that the utility acquired in the property, and the purposes for which the utility intended to use that property, consequential damages potentially represented a significant portion of the compensation the landowner could recover. Ga. Power Co. v. Stowers, 282 Ga. App. 695, 639 S.E.2d 605 (2006).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Justice of the peace court is not a court of record, and it is therefore not subject to the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9). 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-351.

City Court of Albany is a court of record within the meaning of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9). 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U74-31.

Neither Professional Practices Commission nor local board of education is a court of record for purposes of the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9) and, therefore, such commission is without authority to compel a party to proceeding before it to submit to medical examination pursuant to Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 8 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-11-35). 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-48.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Actions, § 20. 32 Am. Jur. 2d, Federal Courts, § 20.

1 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Accord and Satisfaction, § 33.

C.J.S.

- 35A C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, §§ 10, 16, 17.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-11-1

Total Results: 20  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Cook v. State, 870 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 114 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 471

...Hall, 308 Ga. 354, 369 (840 SE2d 407) (2020). 52 It provides for a statutory defense of laches, OCGA § 9-14-48 (e), and contains a bar on successive habeas petitions, OCGA § 9-14-51. Moreover, the Civil Practice Act, OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., generally applies to habeas corpus proceedings....
Copy

Austin v. Clark, 294 Ga. 773 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 67 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 10, 2014 | 755 S.E.2d 796, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 452

...ing on the curb where water drains from the roadway. Austin alleges that the individual defendants negligently performed the ministerial duties of inspecting, maintaining and repairing the sidewalk and road where she fell. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6), the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the claims against them were barred by the doctrine of official immunity....
...The trial court can exercise its broad discretion to enter protective orders governing discovery, 2 see OCGA § 9-11-26 (c),3 to control the sequence and timing of discovery, see OCGA § 9-11-26 (d),4 and to establish pretrial procedure, see OCGA § 9-11-16 (a) (5),5 to focus discovery initially on the issue of whether any applicable ministerial duties existed....
...rules that “methods of discovery may be used in any sequence” and “the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not operate to d elay any other party’s disco very.” 5 OCG A § 9-11-16 (a) (5) provides that the trial court, on the motion of any party or on its own motio n, shall direct the attorneys for the parties to ap pear before it for a pretrial conference to consider, along with other enumerated topics, “[s]uch o...
...be warranted. By carefully utilizing their authority to manage discovery and pretrial practice, trial courts should be able to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this and similar cases involving official immunity. OCGA § 9-11-1....
Copy

Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Couch, 295 Ga. 469 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 63 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2014 | 759 S.E.2d 804, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1524

...The General Assembly did not need to more explicitly incorporate the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, because the CPA by its own terms applied generally to the tort lawsuits authorized by the GTCA at the time the GTCA was enacted. See OCGA §§ 9-11-1 (“This chapter [the CPA] governs the procedure in all courts of record of this state in all actions 6 The constitutional and statutory waivers of sovereign immunity for contract disputes are similarly worded not in te...
...all, foreclosing progress toward a disposition of the case in the meantime. Thus, it is evident that, once the GTCA’s special requirements for service of process have been satisfied, the deadline for filing an answer in civil actions set forth in § 9-11-12 (a) of the CPA, which is normally 30 days, applies. See Dept. of Transp. v. Gilmore, 209 Ga. App. 656, 657-658 (434 SE2d 114) (1993) (applying § 9-11-12 (a) and related CPA provisions in determining whether the state defendant’s answer in a malpractice action was untimely). 17 reasonable settlement offer and pursuing further unnecessary litigation....
...But § 50-21-32 mandates attorney fees awards in situations beyond those provided for in the CPA, along the lines of the strict version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 that existed when the GTCA was enacted but was never made part of our Civil Practice Act. See OCGA § 9-11-11 (not providing any sanction related to the signing of pleadings)....
...this title, the ‘Georgia Civil Practice Act.’”). 22 proper conduct of such civil litigation and thus to sabotage the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of such actions, OCGA § 9-11-1, while depriving the courts of the authority to sanction the state as provided by those rules....
Copy

Resurgens, P.C. v. Elliott, 301 Ga. 589 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 30, 2017 | 800 S.E.2d 580

...See Intl. Harvester Co. v. Cunningham, 245 Ga. App. 736, 738 (538 SE2d 82) (2000) (“The goal of discovery is the fair resolution of legal disputes, to remove the potential for secrecy and hiding of material.” (citation and punctuation omitted)); OCGA § 9-11-1 (the Civil Practice Act “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”).
Copy

Henderson v. State, 295 Ga. 333 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2014 | 759 S.E.2d 827, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1532

... Appellant’s contention that the orders are also invalid because they do not contain findings of fact is without merit. Appellant relies on OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) to argue that findings of fact were necessary, but that Code section is inapplicable to this criminal case. See OCGA § 9-11-1 (saying that Chapter 11 of Title 9 applies “in all actions of a civil nature”)....
Copy

Williams v. the Stats, 315 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2023).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 7, 2023

...In Georgia, non-party intervention in court proceedings is governed by OCGA § 9-11-24 of Georgia’s Civil Practice Act (“CPA”). However, application of the CPA is limited to “actions of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity,” OCGA § 9-11-1 (emphasis supplied), or special statutory proceedings as prescribed in OCGA § 9-11-81....
Copy

Tenet HealthSystem GB, Inc. v. Thomas, 816 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2018 | 304 Ga. 86

...Tenet HealthSystem GB , 340 Ga. App. 70, 796 S.E.2d 301 (2017), to consider whether that court properly held that a claim of imputed simple negligence against a hospital, which was asserted in a second amended complaint, related back to the original complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c).1 Finding that the Court of Appeals was correct, we affirm that court's judgment. The original complaint was filed on May 6, 2014, shortly before expiration of the applicable two-year statute of limitation, OCGA § 9-3-33, and the facts alleged in that initial filing include the following....
...oid of allegations of liability on the part of the hospital nursing staff," that the new imputed liability claim does not arise from "the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading," OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), and that the new claim therefore does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint....
...st the hospital for a nurse's removal of the collar in violation of hospital policy arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. Thomas , 340 Ga. App. at 73-74, 796 S.E.2d 301.3 The language of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) is modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (c), "and although there are some differences between the state and federal provisions, those differences are not material to the question presented here....
...American Express Co. , 460 F.3d 215, 226-228 (2nd Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is owed no deference on appeal. See Johnson v. Burrell , 294 Ga. 301, 301 (2), n. 2, 751 S.E.2d 301 (2013). Generally, our Civil Practice Act (CPA), OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., "advances 'liberality of pleading.' " Deering v....
...Such notice pleading "is the hallmark of and prescribed by the CPA," Phagan v. State , 287 Ga. 856, 859, 700 S.E.2d 589 (2010), which "abolished issue pleading." Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking , 270 Ga. 95, 95 (2), 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998). The particular section of the CPA at issue in this case, OCGA § 9-11-15, "is liberally construed in favor of allowing amendments. Under OCGA § 9-11-15, an amendment to a complaint may raise a new cause of action." Deering , 282 Ga. at 163, 646 S.E.2d 262 (citations omitted). And under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), the specific subsection that is relevant here, "[w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the **90amended pleading arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading." Cf....
...relates back to the date of the original pleading when ... the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading."). "The very purpose of [ OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) ] is to 'qualify a statute of limitations.' " Mayle , 545 U.S....
...onduct, transaction, or occurrence as set forth in the original pleading. 6A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1496 (3d ed., April 2018 Update). See also Mayle , 545 U.S. at 666, 125 S.Ct. 2562 (Souter, J., dissenting). In OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), like Federal Rule 15 (c) (1) (B), "[t]he key words are 'conduct, transaction, or occurrence.' " Mayle , 545 U.S....
...2008) (where the plaintiff sued two emergency room physicians and a hospital as vicariously liable for their acts, an amended claim against a previously unnamed radiologist arose out of the same occurrence under a Florida rule very similar to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) ); Cammon v....
...actions that formed the basis of the claims asserted in the [earlier] complaint[s]"). Accordingly, we conclude that the imputed liability claim in Thomas's second amended complaint relates back to the date of her original complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) and that, as a result, that new claim is not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitation....
...plaintiff's failure to comply with [the statute requiring an expert affidavit]."). Judgment affirmed. Melton, P.J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, Grant, JJ., and Judge Dean Carlos Bucci concur. Peterson, J., not participating. OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provides: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading....
...the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading." To the extent that Thomas v. Medical Center of Central Ga. , 286 Ga. App. 147, 648 S.E.2d 409 (2007), which never cited OCGA § 9-11-15, much less analyzed that statute, is inconsistent with our specific holding in this case, it is hereby disapproved.
Copy

Walker v. Tensor Mach., Ltd., 298 Ga. 297 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 16, 2015 | 779 S.E.2d 651

Copy

In the Matter of Tamorra A. Boyd, 882 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 20, 2022 | 315 Ga. 390

...public policy of this state favoring resolution of cases on their merits”); In the Matter of Lasonde, 260 Ga. 843 (400 SE2d 322) (1991) (case remanded to the special master for opening of default under the policy of resolving cases on the merits); see, e.g., OCGA § 9-11-1 (providing that the Civil Practice Act “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”); OCGA § 9-11-8 (f) (providing that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice”)....
Copy

Workman v. Rl Bb Acq I-ga Cvl, LLC, 303 Ga. 693 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 21, 2018

...protective order is granted and to do so without the benefit of having reviewed responsive pleading. Such an interpretation would result in potentially unnecessary filings and runs counter to the purpose of the Civil Practice Act, see OCGA § 9-11-1....
Copy

Workman v. Rl Bb Acq I-ga Cvl, LLC, 814 S.E.2d 696 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 21, 2018

...otion for protective order is granted and to do so without the benefit of having reviewed responsive pleading. Such an interpretation would result in potentially unnecessary filings and runs counter to the purpose of the Civil Practice Act, see OCGA § 9-11-1....
Copy

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Johnson, 299 Ga. 861 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2016 | 792 S.E.2d 704

...r Montgomery v. Bank of America, 321 Ga. App. 343 (740 SE2d 434) (2013), because he was not a party to the assignment, and thus that his complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a claim against BOA upon which relief can be granted. See OCGA§ 9-11-12 (b)(6). On July 23, 2014, Johnson filed an amended complaint, alleging that BOA had failed to provide evidence that a sale of the property or a conveyance of the mortgage was made from Pine State to BOA and repeating his allegation that P...
...Thus, we do not address any claims related to the other defendants. The case was not orally argued in the Court of Appeals. Johnson’s concessions make it unnecessary for us to decide whether it would have heen appropriate under Georgia’s Civil Practice Act, see OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., for the trial court or the Court of Appeals to consider the security deed attached to BOA’s motion to dismiss, without converting the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion, either as a document “central to the plaint...
Copy

SMITH v. State, 319 Ga. 352 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 29, 2024

...27 The State challenges this conclusion, arguing that in rem forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, and that civil forfeiture pleadings are therefore governed by the Civil Practice Act’s notice- pleading standard. See OCGA § 9-11-1 (providing that the Civil Practice Act “governs the procedure in all courts of record of this state in all actions of a civil nature”)....
Copy

In the Matter of Melvin T. Johnson, 838 S.E.2d 755 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 10, 2020 | 308 Ga. 233

...deeming the facts alleged and the violations charged in the formal complaints admitted. Although Johnson contends that the special master erred in entering the sanctions order prior to his filing a response, neither the State Bar rules nor the Civil Practice Act, OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., grants a respondent any particular time in which to respond to a sanctions motion,2 and at the time the special 1 The requests for admissions were filed in three of the five matters. Because Johnson failed to respond to t...
Copy

Warbler Investments, LLC v. City of Soc. Circle, 321 Ga. 125 (Ga. 2025).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 4, 2025

...agraph V’s naming requirement. After all, Paragraph V waives sov- ereign immunity for actions for declaratory relief (and later, injunc- tive relief): civil actions to which the Civil Practice Act, including OCGA § 9-11-21, applies. See OCGA §§ 9-11-1 (“This chapter gov- erns ....
...aint can be cured by adding or dropping parties in a later amended com- plaint. And if this language does not conflict with or displace OCGA § 9-11-21’s procedure for adding or dropping parties, it remains available for that purpose. See OCGA § 9-11-1; Sutton v....
...t is not brought in this way cannot be cured by amendment. Put simply, to 9 An “action” begins when the original complaint is filed, see OCGA § 9-11-3 (a), and it remains the same “action” even if the complaint is amended, see OCGA § 9-11-15 (a). 25 determine whether an action filed under Paragraph V should be dismissed under Paragraph V (b) (2), a trial court need only look at the defendants named at the time the suit was brought....
Copy

Moore v. White, Warden, 907 S.E.2d 902 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 22, 2024 | 320 Ga. 120

...ceases to hold office, the action does not abate, and his successor is automatically substituted as a party” and that the omission to enter an order of substitution “shall not affect the substitution”). See also Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471, 493 (870 SE2d 758) (2022) (explaining that “the Civil Practice Act, OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., generally applies to habeas corpus proceedings”). 6 indictment....

Bailey v. Mcintosh Cnty. (three Cases) (Ga. 2025).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 30, 2025 | 320 Ga. 120

...498 (2023), the filing of such a petition initiates a unique constitutional procedure that “[is] not based on the violation of any private right,” 315 Ga. at 506 n.15, and that is not subject to the pleading requirements of Georgia’s Civil Practice Act, OCGA §§ 9-11-1, et seq. Rather, the filing of the petition “[is] based on the home rule power conferred on counties … and the concomitant power conferred on the electorate to amend or repeal an ordinance, resolution, or regulation adopted by a county’s governing authority.” Sweatt, 315 Ga....

SMITH v. State (Ga. 2024).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 29, 2024 | 320 Ga. 120

...l indictment. The State challenges this conclusion, arguing that in rem forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, and that civil forfeiture pleadings are therefore governed by the Civil Practice Act’s notice- pleading standard. See OCGA § 9-11-1 (providing that the Civil Practice Act “governs the procedure in all courts of record of this state in all actions of a civil nature”)....

Camden Cnty. v. Sweatt, Judge (Ga. 2023).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 7, 2023 | 320 Ga. 120

...In Georgia, non-party intervention in court proceedings is governed by OCGA § 9-11-24 of Georgia’s Civil Practice Act (“CPA”). However, application of the CPA is limited to “actions of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity,” OCGA § 9-11-1 (emphasis supplied), or special statutory proceedings as prescribed in OCGA § 9-11-81....
Copy

Tenet Health Sys. Gb, Inc. v. Thomas, 304 Ga. 86 (Ga. 2018).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2018

...Tenet HealthSystem GB, 340 Ga. App. 70 (796 SE2d 301) (2017), to consider whether that court properly held that a claim of imputed simple negligence against a hospital, which was asserted in a second amended complaint, related back to the original complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c).1 Finding that the Court of Appeals was correct, we affirm that court’s judgment. 1 OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) provides: Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading....
...complaint was “devoid of allegations of liability on the part of the hospital nursing staff,” that the new imputed liability claim does not arise from the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading,” OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), and that the new claim therefore does 4 not relate back to the filing of the original complaint....
...new imputed liability claim against the hospital for a nurse’s removal of the collar in violation of hospital policy arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original complaint. Thomas, 340 Ga. App. at 73- 74.3 The language of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) is modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (c), “and although there are some differences between the state and federal provisions, those differences are not material to the question presented here....
...American Express Co., 460 F3d 215, 226-228 (2nd Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is owed no deference on appeal. See Johnson v. Burrell, 294 Ga. 301, 301 (2), n. 2 (751 SE2d 301) (2013). Generally, our Civil Practice Act (CPA), OCGA § 9-11-1 et seq., “advances ‘liberality of pleading.’” Deering v....
...Such notice pleading “is the hallmark of and prescribed by the CPA,” Phagan v. State, 287 Ga. 856, 859 (700 SE2d 589) (2010), which “abolished issue pleading.” Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, 270 Ga. 95, 95 (2) (507 SE2d 730) (1998). The particular section of the CPA at issue in this case, OCGA § 9-11-15, “is liberally construed in favor of allowing amendments. Under OCGA § 9-11-15, an amendment to a complaint may raise a new cause of action.” Deering, 282 Ga. at 163 (citations omitted). And under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), the specific subsection that is relevant here, “[w]henever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.” Cf....
...relates back to the date of the original pleading when . . . the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out — or attempted to be set out — in the original pleading[.]”). “The very purpose of [OCGA § 9-11-15 8 (c)] is to ‘qualify a statute of limitations.’” Mayle, 545 U....
...arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as set forth in the original pleading. 6A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1496 (3d ed., April 2018 Update). See also Mayle, 545 U. S. at 666 (Souter, J., dissenting). In OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), like Federal Rule 15 (c) (1) (B), “[t]he key words are ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence.’” Mayle, 545 U....
...2008) (where the plaintiff sued two emergency room physicians and a hospital as vicariously liable for their acts, an amended claim against a previously unnamed radiologist arose out of the same occurrence under a Florida rule very similar to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c)); Cammon v....
...that formed the basis of the claims asserted in the [earlier] complaint[s]”). Accordingly, we conclude that the imputed liability claim in Thomas’s second amended complaint relates back to the date of her original complaint pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) and that, as a result, that new claim is not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitation....
...J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, Grant, JJ., and Judge Dean Carlos Bucci concur. Peterson, J., not participating. 5 To the extent that Thomas v. Med. Center of Central Ga., 286 Ga. App. 147 (648 SE2d 409) (2007), which never cited OCGA § 9-11-15, much less analyzed that statute, is inconsistent with our specific holding in this case, it is hereby disapproved. 16 Decided June 29, 2018. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 340 Ga....