Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46 — Institution of action on same cause in other state; setting case in this state; postponement limited | Georgia Code
O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46 (2018) Copy Cite Official Site Syfertize CourtListener Scholar Amendments

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 2. Actions Generally, 9-2-1 through 9-2-63.

ARTICLE 3 ABATEMENT

9-2-46. Institution of action on same cause in other state; setting case in this state; postponement limited.

  1. Whenever it is made to appear to the judge of any court that any party to a case pending in the court, after the case has been commenced, has instituted proceedings in any court of any other state involving the same controversy or cause of action, or in which the judgment which might be rendered in the other state might be pleadable in the case in this state as affecting the relief sought, it shall be the duty of the judge of the court in which the case is pending to set the case specially and ahead of all other business for trial as the first case at the next ensuing term of the court, except for other cases having precedence for the same reason.
  2. No case so assigned for trial shall be continued or postponed for more than 30 days for any cause whatsoever at the instance of the party who has instituted the case or proceedings in the foreign state. The case may be postponed from day to day for good cause for not exceeding 30 days at the instance of such party, but after being postponed for the 30 days it shall not be further postponed at his instance. If the term of court ends within the 30 days and the case has not been continued for the term, it shall stand for trial as the first case at the next ensuing term. This Code section shall not be applied so as to set any case for trial before proper times have elapsed for notice, the filing of defensive pleadings, and discovery. Proper time limits for discovery shall be in the discretion of the judge.

(Ga. L. 1922, p. 96, §§ 1, 2; Code 1933, §§ 3-603, 3-604.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

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).

Preference for first-filed rule.

- Fact that former employee lied to the former employer in order to file suit over non-competition agreement in Georgia first did not require a conclusion that the district court abused the court's discretion in entertaining the employee's first-filed declaratory judgment action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., especially since O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46(a) evidenced Georgia's favoritism for the first-filed rule. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, § 11. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, § 82.

C.J.S.

- 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 70 et seq. 17 C.J.S., Continuances, § 115. 21 C.J.S., Courts, §§ 170, 179.

Database error: SQLSTATE[HY000]: General error: 8 attempt to write a readonly database

This Georgia Code resource is curated by the attorney maintaining this site, a personal injury and workers' compensation attorney admitted in Georgia (State Bar of Georgia No. 881027, since 2006) and Florida. Attorney Syfert regularly works with Title 9 in the context of Georgia civil practice and statute of limitations and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida and South Georgia. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.