O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46 (2019)

Institution of action on same cause in other state; setting case in this state; postponement limited

✓ 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

(a) 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. (b) 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.

History

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

Annotations

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 Ga. LEXIS 340 (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 favorit-

ism for the first-filed rule. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24549 (11th Cir. 2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 1 Am. Jur. 2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival, § 11. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §§ 94, 100.

C.J.S. 1 C.J.S., Abatement and Revival, § 70 et seq. 17 C.J.S., Continuances, § 113. 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 142 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2013 · leading case: William S. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William S. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005). “See O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46(a) (stating in relevant part that "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…”
Turner Sculpture, Ltd. v. Geographics, Inc., 51 Va. Cir. 178 (Accomack Cir. Ct. 2000). “Furthermore, the Georgia statute which Turner cites, O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46, does not necessarily establish that Georgia would not grant a stay if the tables were turned.”
Wi-Sky Inflight, Inc. v. Michael Leabman (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “If the trial court should determine that there has not been a settlement, we direct that the trial court further consider the effect of the stipulated stay of the Eastern District of Virginia case on the issues raised in this appeal, that is, whether under Georgia’s first-filed…”
— 9-2-46(a) — 1 case
William S. Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005). “See O.C.G.A. § 9-2-46(a) (stating in relevant part that "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…”
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.