O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-2-45 (2019)

No abatement for pendency of action in another state

✓ 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

The pendency of a prior action in another state shall not abate an action between the same parties for the same cause in this state.

History

Civil Code 1895, § 3738; Civil Code 1910, § 4332; Code 1933, § 3-602. History of Section. This Code section is derived from the

decision in Chattanooga, R. & C.R.R. v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 13 S.E. 109 (1891).

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Parties to affected actions. - This section applies when the second action is instituted by defendant in the first action, as well as when plaintiff in both actions is the same person. Ambursen Hydraulic Constr. Co. v. Northern Contracting Co., 140 Ga. 1, 78 S.E. 340, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 1 (1913). Alimony action not precluded by pending out-of-state divorce action. - Under former Code 1933, § 30-213 (see now O.C.G.A. § 19-6-10), the legislature did not intend to preclude maintenance of alimony action when a divorce action was pending in another state. Ward v. Ward, 223 Ga. 868, 159 S.E.2d 81, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 995 (1968). Texas divorce decree not affected by action pending in this state. - Mere fact that husband had a divorce

action pending in court in this state when the husband procured a Texas divorce is not sufficient to rebut prima facie validity of the Texas decree, since whether or not there was an action pending in this state for the same cause was not a jurisdictional fact in the case in Texas. Meeks v. Meeks, 209 Ga. 588, 74 S.E.2d 861, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 340 (1953). Dismissal of action not justified. - Dismissal of an action by foreign corporations against a manufacturer on the basis of a prior pending action in the courts of another state was inappropriate in consideration of the provisions of O.C.G.A. §§ 92-5, 9-2-44, and 9-2-45. Flagg Energy Dev. Corp. v. GMC, 223 Ga. App. 259, 477 S.E.2d 402.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, §§ 11, 18. C.J.S. 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 70 et seq. ALR. Statute requiring filing of formal notice of lis pendens in certain classes of cases as

affecting common-law doctrine of lis pendens in other cases, 10 A.L.R. 306. Action or suit as abating mandamus proceeding or vice versa, 37 A.L.R. 1432. Abatement by pendency of another action as affected by addition or omission of parties defendant in second suit, 44 A.L.R. 806.

Res judicata as available in support of demurrer, 101 A.L.R. 1325. Pendency of criminal prosecution as ground for continuance or postponement

of civil action involving facts or transactions upon which prosecution is predicated, 123 A.L.R. 1453.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–1996 · leading case: Atl. Wood Indus., Inc. v. Lumbermen's Underwriting All., 396 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atl. Wood Indus., Inc. v. Lumbermen's Underwriting All., 396 S.E.2d 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-2-45. Likewise, the subsequent finality of the Virginia declaratory judgment action is not a ground for dismissing the instant appeals.”

Flagg Energy Dev. Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 477 S.E.2d 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “App. 310, 311 (1) ( 457 SE2d 249 ) (1995). Moreover, “[t]he pendency of a prior action in another state shall not abate an action between the same parties for the same cause in this state.”

Lumpkin v. Lumpkin, 328 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-2-45. In any event, it has not been shown that a motion for such a stay was made in the court below.”

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.