Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 18; Ga. L. 1968, p. 1104, § 7.)
- For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 18, see 28 U.S.C.
- For article discussing counterclaims and cross-claims under the Georgia Civil Practice Act, see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 205 (1967). For article, "Synopses of 1968 Amendments to the Appellate Procedure Act and Georgia Civil Practice Act," see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 503 (1968). For article, "Georgia's Constitutional Scheme for State Appellate Jurisdiction," see 6 Ga. St. B.J. 24 (2001).
Constitutional venue provisions may not be changed by the legislature or the courts, and the adoption of procedural devices for adjudicating claims of various parties in the same action does not effect a change in the venue requirements of the Constitution. Haley v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 141 Ga. App. 13, 232 S.E.2d 362 (1977).
- Hospital's home court did not err in transferring the remaining counterclaim to a patient's home court for trial as the hospital consented to the patient's home court trying the patient's counterclaim against the hospital for the improper release of the patient's mental health records when the hospital invoked the jurisdiction of that court to pursue the hospital's suit against the patient for non-payment for medical services when: (1) both claims arose out of the contractual relationship between the hospital and the patient; (2) the common nexus between the claims was the mental health treatment the hospital gave to the patient; (3) the hospital sought to recover monies due for the treatment at issue in the patient's counterclaim; and (4) this commonality met the broad similarity or connectedness test, as well as the arising out of the same transaction or occurrence test used for determining whether a counterclaim was compulsory under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-13(a). Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Hopson, 264 Ga. App. 123, 589 S.E.2d 696 (2003).
Both legal and equitable claims may be set forth in the same complaint under the Civil Practice Act (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 11, T. 9). Miller v. Turner, 228 Ga. 701, 187 S.E.2d 688 (1972).
- There is now no inhibition to joinder of actions ex contractu and those ex delicto. Continental Ins. Co. v. Mercer, 130 Ga. App. 339, 203 S.E.2d 297 (1973).
- Even though the multiple claims might be permissively joined, a party is not forced to judgment on all possible causes of action in one suit. Stapleton v. Palmore, 162 Ga. App. 525, 291 S.E.2d 445, aff'd, 250 Ga. 259, 297 S.E.2d 270 (1982); Nationwide-Penncraft, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 162 Ga. App. 555, 291 S.E.2d 760, cert. denied, 249 Ga. App. 687, 294 S.E.2d 529 (1982).
Clear implication of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-18 is that party asserting claim to relief is not required to join independent claims the party has against opposing party. Nationwide-Penncraft, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 249 Ga. 687, 294 S.E.2d 529 (1982).
As to joinder of third-party claim of secondary liability with direct damage claim against third-party defendant under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-18 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18, see Cohen v. McLaughlin, 250 Ga. 661, 301 S.E.2d 37 (1983).
- In an action against the defendant for injuries caused by an automobile collision, when the defendant brought a third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution against a brake repair shop, the defendant's claim for damages to the defendant's own car was properly joined by amendment of the third-party complaint. Shleifer v. Bridgestone-Firestone, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 256, 477 S.E.2d 405 (1996).
- In the context of a divorce action, it is impermissible for the plaintiff to seek damages against the grantee of an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the defendant. Shah v. Shah, 270 Ga. 649, 513 S.E.2d 730 (1999).
Cited in King v. King, 225 Ga. 142, 166 S.E.2d 347 (1969); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Black, 120 Ga. App. 151, 169 S.E.2d 742 (1969); Bulloch County Hosp. Auth. v. Fowler, 124 Ga. App. 242, 183 S.E.2d 586 (1971); Thornton v. North Am. Acceptance Corp., 228 Ga. 176, 184 S.E.2d 589 (1971); O'Neil v. Williams, 232 Ga. 170, 205 S.E.2d 226 (1974); Carter v. Harrell, 132 Ga. App. 148, 207 S.E.2d 648 (1974); Chupp v. Henderson, 134 Ga. App. 808, 216 S.E.2d 366 (1975); C & S Land, Transp. & Dev. Corp. v. Grubbs, 141 Ga. App. 393, 233 S.E.2d 486 (1977); Tingle v. Georgia Power Co., 147 Ga. App. 775, 250 S.E.2d 497 (1978); Singleton v. Airco, Inc., 80 F.R.D. 467 (D. Ga. 1978); Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 159 Ga. App. 416, 283 S.E.2d 647 (1981); Greyhound Lines v. Cobb County, 681 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir. 1982); McNeal v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 249 Ga. 662, 293 S.E.2d 331 (1982); Hughes v. Hughes, 193 Ga. App. 72, 387 S.E.2d 29 (1989); Lawson v. Watkins, 261 Ga. 147, 401 S.E.2d 719 (1991); Satilla Cmty. Serv. Bd. v. Satilla Health Servs., 275 Ga. 805, 573 S.E.2d 31 (2002); Walker v. Walker, 293 Ga. App. 872, 668 S.E.2d 330 (2008); Sentinel Offender Svcs., LLC v. Glover, 296 Ga. 315, 766 S.E.2d 456 (2014).
- 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Actions, § 96 et seq. 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraudulent Conveyances, §§ 129, 133. 65 Am Jur. 2d, Receivers, § 101.
- 1A C.J.S., Actions, § 108 et seq. 35A C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, § 43 et seq. 67A C.J.S., Parties, § 78 et seq.
- Joinder of cause of action against party causing injury with cause of action against latter's insurer or indemnitor, 7 A.L.R. 1003.
Joinder of cause of action for breach of a contract with cause of action for fraud inducing the contract, 10 A.L.R. 756.
Different benefits or claims of benefit under a policy of insurance as constituting a single cause of action or separate causes, 69 A.L.R. 889; 159 A.L.R. 563.
May acts of independent tort-feasors, each of which alone causes or tends to produce some damage, be combined to create a joint liability, 91 A.L.R. 759.
Inclusion in bill for divorce or annulment of allegations and prayer to impress trust upon property or otherwise settle property rights, 93 A.L.R. 327.
Joinder in one action of sureties on different bonds relating to same matter, 106 A.L.R. 90; 137 A.L.R. 1044.
Concerted action or agreement to resist enforcement of a statute because of doubt as to its constitutionality or construction as ground for joinder of defendants in action or suit by governmental authorities, 107 A.L.R. 670.
Joinder of claims to separate parcels in suit to quiet or to remove cloud on title, or to determine adverse claims to land, 118 A.L.R. 1400.
Acquisition or perfection after commencement of action of right or title to claim or property which is the subject of action or counterclaim, 125 A.L.R. 612.
Right of one to recover for personal injury to himself and for death of another killed in the same accident as giving rise to a single cause of action or to separate causes of action, 161 A.L.R. 208.
Right of wife or child by virtue of right to support to maintain action to set aside conveyance by husband or parent as fraudulent, without reducing claim to judgment, 164 A.L.R. 524.
Joinder in defamation action, of denial and plea of truth of statement, 21 A.L.R.2d 813.
Construction, application, and effect of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 18(b) and like state rules or statutes pertaining to joinder in a single action of two claims although one was previously cognizable only after the other had been prosecuted to a conclusion, 61 A.L.R.2d 688.
Propriety of consolidation for trial of actions for personal injuries, death, or property damages arising out of same accident, 68 A.L.R.2d 1372.
Appealability of state court order granting or denying consolidation, severance, or separate trials, 77 A.L.R.3d 1082.
When loss-of-consortium claim must be joined with underlying personal injury claim, 60 A.L.R.4th 1174.
Total Results: 13
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-03-15
Snippet: 9-11-13 (regarding counter- and cross-claims); 9-11-18 (joinder of claims and remedies); 9-11-19 (joinder
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-03-15
Snippet: 9-11-13 (regarding counter- and cross-claims); 9-11-18 (joinder of claims and remedies); 9-11-19 (joinder
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-06-29
Citation: 816 S.E.2d 670, 304 Ga. 105
Snippet: practice of permissive joinder of claims, see OCGA § 9-11-18, which is allowed by statute in Georgia. We stated:
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11
Snippet: direct claims against the CMM parties. See OCGA § 9-11-18.5 The suit by Ingram against Bostick was
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11
Citation: 297 Ga. 55, 772 S.E.2d 671, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 291
Snippet: direct claims against the CMM parties. See OCGA § 9-11-18. 5 The suit by Ingram against Bostick
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-11-24
Citation: 296 Ga. 315, 766 S.E.2d 456
Snippet: of the habeas relief requested. However, OCGA § 9-11-18 allows a party asserting a claim for relief as
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-11-25
Citation: 573 S.E.2d 31, 275 Ga. 805, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3540, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 1062
Snippet: claim for secondary liability, OCGA §§ 9-11-14 and 9-11-18 permit certain direct claims to be brought against
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-10-15
Citation: 571 S.E.2d 383, 275 Ga. 624, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2963, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 915
Snippet: [5] See generally OCGA §§ 9-11-13, 9-11-14, 9-11-18, 9-11-19, 9-11-20.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-03-27
Citation: 561 S.E.2d 431, 275 Ga. 2, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 478
Snippet: causes of action in a single complaint. See OCGA § 9-11-18. And those causes of action that are not based
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-03-15
Citation: 513 S.E.2d 730, 270 Ga. 649, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1046, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 303
Snippet: from asserting such a claim for damages on OCGA § 9-11-18 (b). That Code section, however, does not support
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-03-06
Citation: 265 Ga. 236, 454 S.E.2d 460
Snippet: It follows that Wife could not rely upon OCGA § 9-11-18 as authority for including a claim for revival
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-03-15
Citation: 401 S.E.2d 719, 261 Ga. 147, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 126
Snippet: judicata issue. 2. Our joinder statute, OCGA § 9-11-18, provides for permissive joinder of claims for
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1983-03-09
Citation: 301 S.E.2d 37, 250 Ga. 661, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 604
Snippet: Cohen, these decisions ignore CPA § 18 (a) (OCGA § 9-11-18 (a) (Code Ann. § 81A-118)) to the extent that they