U.S. Code.

- For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 82, see 28 U.S.C.

Law reviews.

- For article discussing aspects of third party practice (impleader) under this chapter, see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 355 (1968). For article, "Current Problems with Venue in Georgia," see 12 Ga. St. B.J. 71 (1975). For article examining waiver of objections to venue and lack of personal jurisdiction by default, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 181 (1978). For note discussing problems with venue in this state and proposing statutory revisions to improve the resolution of venue questions, see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 254 (1972). For comment on Register v. Stone's Independent Oil Distrib., Inc., 227 Ga. 123, 179 S.E.2d 68 (1971), appearing below, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 428 (1972).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Enactment of new procedural method of bringing in parties cannot change the jurisdictional rules of the Constitution of this state. Register v. Stone's Indep. Oil Distribs., Inc., 227 Ga. 123, 179 S.E.2d 68 (1971). For comment, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 428 (1972).

Jurisdictional distinctions between law and equity remain. Burnham v. Lynn, 235 Ga. 207, 219 S.E.2d 111 (1975).

Constitutional venue provisions may not be altered or 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 of this state. Pemberton v. Purifoy, 128 Ga. App. 892, 198 S.E.2d 356 (1973); Haley v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 141 Ga. App. 13, 232 S.E.2d 362 (1977).

Cited in Register v. Stone's Indep. Oil Distribs., 122 Ga. App. 335, 177 S.E.2d 92 (1970); Buford v. Buford, 231 Ga. 9, 200 S.E.2d 97 (1973); Henderson v. Kent, 158 Ga. App. 206, 279 S.E.2d 503 (1981); Lester Witte & Co. v. Cobb Bank & Trust Co., 248 Ga. 235, 282 S.E.2d 296 (1981); Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 159 Ga. App. 416, 283 S.E.2d 647 (1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES