Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1922, p. 96, §§ 1, 2; Code 1933, §§ 3-603, 3-604.)
- 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).
- 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).
- 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, § 11. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, § 82.
- 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 70 et seq. 17 C.J.S., Continuances, § 115. 21 C.J.S., Courts, §§ 170, 179.
No results found for Georgia Code 9-2-46.