O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-6-1 (2019)

Final judgment prerequisite to appeal; grant of new trial subject to review

✓ 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

No appeal as to any ruling or decision in a mandamus or quo warranto proceeding or in a case involving a writ of prohibition may be

taken until there has been a final judgment in the trial court. The grant of a new trial shall be treated as a final judgment in these cases and subject to review as in other cases.

History

Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 103, § 3; Civil Code 1895, § 4874; Civil Code 1910, § 5447; Code 1933, § 64-110; Ga. L. 1946, p. 726, § 1; Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 3-4/HB 927.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 1-1/HB 927, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Appellate Jurisdiction Reform Act of 2016.’”

Ga. L. 2016, p. 865, § 6-1/HB 927, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: “Part III of this Act shall become effective on January 1, 2017, and shall apply to cases in which a notice of appeal or application to appeal is filed on or after such date.” Law reviews. For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U. L. Rev. 205 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section does not affect right to file and prosecute motion for new trial in a mandamus case, and does not limit the time within which such a motion must be disposed of. City of Macon v. Herrington, 198 Ga. 576, 32 S.E.2d 517, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 455 (1944) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-1). Final judgment on prayer for mandamus prerequisite to appeal. - Order overruling demurrers (now motions to dismiss), to petition for mandamus and for injunctive relief cannot be reviewed by

Supreme Court until there has been a final judgment on the prayer for a mandamus absolute. Walker v. McKenzie, 209 Ga. 653, 74 S.E.2d 870, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 345 (1953). Direct appeal of denial of application in nature of quo warranto. - The law authorizes a direct appeal to a judgment denying an application to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 76 S.E.2d 12, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 398 (1953).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 17 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Mandamus, § 136. 18B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, New Trial, § 1.

ALR. Consideration of obligor’s personal-injury recovery or settlement in fixing alimony or child support, 59 A.L.R.5th 489.

ARTICLE 2 MANDAMUS RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Allowance of attorneys’ fees in mandamus proceedings, 34 A.L.R.4th 457.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Arnold v. Alexander, 914 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arnold v. Alexander, 914 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 4× “III; OCGA § 9-6-1 et seq. However, the Act placed appellate jurisdiction over most cases involving extraordinary remedies in the Court of Appeals beginning in 2017.”

Alexander v. Alexander, 610 S.E.2d 48 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 4× “…sufficiently precise to uphold the agreement. [3] Tidwell v. Critz, 248 Ga. 201 , 203 282 S.E.2d 104 (1981). [4] See OCGA § 9-6-1 et seq.”

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.