Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-9-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 9. Arbitration, 9-9-1 through 9-9-84.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

9-9-1. Short title.

This part shall be known and may be cited as the "Georgia Arbitration Code."

(Code 1933, § 7-301, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 2270, § 1; Code 1981, §9-9-80; Code 1981, §9-9-1, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For annual survey of construction law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 109 (2004). For article, "Methods for Discovery in Arbitration," see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 22 (2008). For survey article on construction law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 59 (2008). For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010). For article, "International Arbitration in Georgia," see 16 (No. 6) Ga. St. B.J. 13 (2011). For annual survey on construction law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 27 (2014). For note, "'A Manifest Disregard of Arbitration?' An Analysis of Recent Georgia Legislation Adding 'Manifest Disregard of the Law' to the Georgia Arbitration Code as a Statutory Ground for Vacatur," see 39 Ga. L. Rev. 259 (2004).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of similarity to the provisions, decisions under former Code Section 9-9-80 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Compelled arbitration based on contract.

- Trial court erred in finding that, in an asset management contract under which a manager was engaged to administer an owner's real estate assets, the choice of remedies which the parties intended was between arbitration and litigation because the contract unambiguously provided that their choice was between termination for default on notice and arbitration after a good faith 30-day effort to resolve their dispute; thus, the manager was entitled to compel arbitration. JOJA Partners, LLC v. Abrams Props., 262 Ga. App. 209, 585 S.E.2d 168 (2003).

Arbitration provision unenforceable.

- Where homebuyers did not initial a sales contract's arbitration provision, it could not have been enforced, and even if it could have been enforced, the homebuyers did not agree in writing to submit to arbitration as required by the agreement; since the homebuyers, in their case against the homebuilder, did not sue pursuant to the warranty or sign any document agreeing to submit to the arbitration provision, that provision in the warranty applied only, if at all, through the sale agreement, which gave no notice of the warranty's mandatory arbitration provision, and the trial court erred in ordering the parties to arbitration. Laird v. Risbergs, 266 Ga. App. 107, 596 S.E.2d 412 (2004).

Trial court's role.

- Pursuant to both O.C.G.A. § 9-9-1 et seq. and the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the trial court properly considered the scope of the arbitrable issues in an employment agreement wherein companies sought to enjoin one of their executives from taking a position with their competitor, both for reasons of potential disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information and due to a non-competition covenant in the employment agreement. Although a court should not pass on the merits of an arbitrable controversy but rather merely determine the arbitrability thereof pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-9-4(d) and (e), the trial court properly found that the non-compete covenant was overly broad and therefore unenforceable, and it was not included in either the temporary restraining order issued against the executive's employment with the competitor or the order compelling arbitration. BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, 265 Ga. App. 589, 595 S.E.2d 99 (2004).

Because the jurisdictional issues the subcontractor raised could not be resolved until after a de novo examination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, the superior court's order confirming an arbitration award had to be vacated, and the case remanded, and if the court found that the parties agreed to the version of their subcontractor's agreement which contained the choice of forum and arbitration clause, personal jurisdiction and venue were proper and the arbitrator's award was to be confirmed. Panhandle Fire Prot., Inc. v. Batson Cook Co., 288 Ga. App. 194, 653 S.E.2d 802 (2007).

Cited in Phillips Constr. Co. v. Cowart Iron Works, Inc., 250 Ga. 488, 299 S.E.2d 538 (1983); City of Atlanta v. Brinderson Corp., 799 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986); Davis v. Gaona, 260 Ga. 450, 396 S.E.2d 218 (1990); Primerica Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Wise, 217 Ga. App. 36, 456 S.E.2d 631 (1995); Ekereke v. Obong, 265 Ga. 728, 462 S.E.2d 372 (1995); Parks v. Anderson, 221 Ga. App. 270, 470 S.E.2d 811 (1996); Results Oriented, Inc. v. Crawford, 245 Ga. App. 432, 538 S.E.2d 73 (2000); Turner County v. City of Ashburn, 293 Ga. 739, 749 S.E.2d 685 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

2A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Arbitration and Award, §§ 2, 98.

ALR.

- Validity and effect under state law of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement, 75 A.L.R.5th 595.

Enforceability of arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements as regards claims under federal civil rights statutes, 152 A.L.R. Fed. 75.

Validity and effect under Federal Arbitration Act (9 USCA § 1 et seq.) of arbitration agreement provision for alternative method of appointment of arbitrator where one party fails or refuses to follow appointment procedure specified in agreement, 159 A.L.R. Fed. 1

Cases Citing Georgia Code 9-9-1 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 9

Turner County v. City of Ashburn

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-10-07

Citation: 293 Ga. 739, 749 S.E.2d 685, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 856

Snippet: 609) (2010). The GeorgiaArbitration Code, OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq., references only disputes with respect to

Brookfield Country Club, Inc. v. St. James-Brookfield, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-06-28

Citation: 696 S.E.2d 663, 287 Ga. 408, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2046, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 494

Snippet: set forth in the Georgia Arbitration Code [OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. (Arbitration Code) ]." The lease further

Bryan County v. Yates Paving & Grading Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-11-30

Citation: 638 S.E.2d 302, 281 Ga. 361, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 3702, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 1033

Snippet: respectfully dissent. The Georgia Arbitration Code, OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. (“GAC”), provides that “[a] written agreement

Greene v. Hundley

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-04-08

Citation: 468 S.E.2d 350, 266 Ga. 592, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1313, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 136

Snippet: arbitrator with regard to that issue. [6] OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. [7] Id. § 9-9-2(c). [8] Ga. L.1988, p

Ekereke v. Obong

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-10-16

Citation: 462 S.E.2d 372, 265 Ga. 728

Snippet: pursuant to the Georgia Arbitration Code, OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq., which provides for binding arbitration

Hardin Construction Group, Inc. v. Fuller Enterprises, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-09-11

Citation: 462 S.E.2d 130, 265 Ga. 770, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 2810, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 719

Snippet: pursuant to the Georgia Arbitration Code, OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq., is a special statutory proceeding, not

Bank South, N.A. v. Howard

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-07-11

Citation: 264 Ga. 339, 444 S.E.2d 799, 42 A.L.R. 5th 763, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 484

Snippet: enacting the “Georgia Arbitration Code,” OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. The stated intention of the General Assembly

Davis v. Gaona

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1990-09-27

Citation: 396 S.E.2d 218, 260 Ga. 450

Snippet: Statute set out in the Civil Practice Act at § 9-9-1 et seq. in that Rule 1000 provides for cases to

Georgia Kraft Co. v. Rhodes

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1987-10-07

Citation: 360 S.E.2d 595, 257 Ga. 469, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 935

Snippet: binding arbitration of existing disputes. OCGA § 9-9-1 et seq. However, it appears that the contractual