O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-4-8 (2019)

When court may refuse declaratory judgment

✓ 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 court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where the judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

History

Ga. L. 1945, p. 137, § 9.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Declaratory judgment inappropriate when issues moot. - Since the plaintiff was seeking to have its present rights determined under a contract and the contract expired, by the plaintiff’s own terms, three months prior to final adjudication in the trial court, the questions before the Court of Appeals became moot and abstract insofar as relief by declaratory judgment was concerned; if the court should declare the rights of the plaintiff under the contract it would be answering an academic, hypothetical question because the contract sought to be construed was no longer of force and to give the plaintiff answers on appeal could not aid in determination of future conduct under the contract. Consolidated Quarries Corp. v. Davidson, 79 Ga. App. 248, 53 S.E.2d 231, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 630 (1949). Declaratory judgment inappropriate when other action needed to settle controversy. - It is a basic rule of

declaratory judgment law that, when it will be necessary to bring another action or proceeding to settle the controversy, a declaratory judgment will not be granted. Consolidated Quarries Corp. v. Davidson, 79 Ga. App. 248, 53 S.E.2d 231, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 630 (1949). Court may refuse declaratory judgment where evidence favorable to defendant. - When, before entry of default judgment, trial or hearing on the merits for final relief is held in a suit for declaratory judgment or injunction or both, and the defendant appears and opposes the relief sought, the trial court may treat the evidence adduced as constituting the answer of the defendant and refuse to enter declaratory or injunctive relief by default if any evidence adduced would authorize judgment in favor of the defendant. Nelson v. Bloodworth, 238 Ga. 264, 232 S.E.2d 547, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 986 (1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 22A Am. Jur. 2d, Declaratory Judgments, § 16. C.J.S. 26 C.J.S., Declaratory Judgments, §§ 92 et seq., 143 et seq. U.L.A. Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (U.L.A.) § 6. ALR. Declaration of rights or declaratory

judgments, 12 A.L.R. 52; 19 A.L.R. 1124; 50 A.L.R. 42; 68 A.L.R. 110; 87 A.L.R. 1205; 114 A.L.R. 1361; 142 A.L.R. 8. Doctrine of in pari delicto as applicable to suits for declaratory relief, 141 A.L.R. 1427. Extent to which principles of res judicata are applicable to judgments in actions for declaratory relief, 10 A.L.R.2d 782.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Heinemann, 459 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Heinemann, 459 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “EDS argued that the procedure invoked by appellees to get "interim declaratory judgment" is improper as it would not terminate the proceedings in final judgment as contemplated by OCGA § 9-4-8; that the preliminary injunction sought by appellees is not designed to preserve the…”

Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. CSX Transp., Inc., 484 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-4-8; see Consolidated Quarries Corp.”

Nash v. Johnson, 385 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 9-4-8. Approximately six weeks after the filing of this “declaratory judgment” action, the fraud and conversion suit involving different parties and claims but the same factual dispute was under way.”

First Acceptance Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Angel Watts (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “In response to various motions filed by the parties, the trial court denied First Acceptance’s motion for reconsideration to open default and its motion for summary judgment, but granted Glancy’s motion to dismiss Count II and motion to refuse judgment in the action pursuant to…”

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.