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

O.C.G.A. § 9-9-16 (2019)

Appeals authorized

✓ 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

Statute text

Any judgment or any order considered a final judgment under this part may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 5.

History

(Code 1933, § 7-317, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 2270, § 1; Code 1981, § 9-9-96; Code 1981, § 9-9-16, as redesignated by Ga. L. 1988, p. 903, § 1.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Jurisdiction. - Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over an attorney's appeal from a final order and judgment of a superior court confirming an arbitration award of the Georgia State Bar Committee on the Arbitration of Fee Disputes in favor of a client's mother's estate because the appeal was from a final judgment of a superior court affirming the award under O.C.G.A. § 9-9-16 and was directly appealable under O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(1). McFarland v. Roberts, 335 Ga. App. 40, 778 S.E.2d 349 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0522, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 229 (Ga. 2016).

Cited in Torres v. Piedmont Builders, Inc., 300 Ga. App. 872, 686 S.E.2d 464 (2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage: enforceability of policy provision limiting appeals from arbitration, 23 A.L.R.5th 801.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage: validity, construction, and effect of policy provision purporting to reduce coverage by amount paid or payable under workers' compensation law, 31 A.L.R.5th 116.

Participation in arbitration proceedings as waiver to objections to arbitrability under state law, 56 A.L.R.5th 757.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline, 307 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2010). “”); Ga.Code Ann. § 9-9-16 ("Any judgment or any order considered a final judgment under this part may be appealed.”
Torres v. Piedmont Builders, Inc., 686 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “5 See OCGA § 9-9-16 (“[a]ny judgment or any order considered a final judgment under this part may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 5”) (emphasis supplied).”
Amerispec Franchise v. Cross, 452 S.E.2d 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Amerispec then applied to the superior court to vacate the award.”
Mcfarland v. Roberts Et Al., 778 S.E.2d 349 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 9-9-16, “[a]ny judgment or any order considered a final judgment under this [Arbitration Code] may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 5.”
Dean A. Pappas v. Yancey L. Stewart (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-9-16 provides that “any order considered a final judgment under [the Georgia Arbitration Code] may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 5.”
John Da Grosa Smith v. Ryan Millsap (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). “See OCGA § 9-9-16. Certainly, the possibility of overturning the award is low.”
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.