U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART I— ORGANIZATION OF COURTS › Chapter CHAPTER 5— DISTRICT COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 90

Georgia

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Georgia is divided into three judicial districts to be known as the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Georgia.

Northern District

(a) The Northern District comprises four divisions.

(1) The Gainesville Division comprises the counties of Banks, Barrow, Dawson, Fannin, Forsyth, Gilmer, Habersham, Hall, Jackson, Lumpkin, Pickens, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union, and White.

Court for the Gainesville Division shall be held at Gainesville.

(2) The Atlanta Division comprises the counties of Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, De Kalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, and Rockdale.

Court for the Atlanta Division shall be held at Atlanta.

(3) The Rome Division comprises the counties of Bartow, Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Floyd, Gordon, Murray, Paulding, Polk, Walker, and Whitfield.

Court for the Rome Division shall be held at Rome.

(4) The Newnan Division comprises the counties of Carroll, Coweta, Fayette, Haralson, Heard, Meriwether, Pike, Spalding, and Troup.

Court for the Newnan Division shall be held at Newnan.

Middle District

(b) The Middle District comprises seven divisions.

(1) The Athens Division comprises the counties of Clarke, Elbert, Franklin, Greene, Hart, Madison, Morgan, Oconee, Oglethorpe, and Walton.

Court for the Athens Division shall be held at Athens.

(2) The Macon Division comprises the counties of Baldwin, Bibb, Bleckley, Butts, Crawford, Hancock, Houston, Jasper, Jones, Lamar, Monroe, Peach, Pulaski, Putnam, Twiggs, Upson, Washington, and Wilkinson.

Court for the Macon Division shall be held at Macon.

(3) The Columbus Division comprises the counties of Chattahoochee, Clay, Harris, Marion, Muscogee, Quitman, Randolph, Stewart, Talbot, and Taylor.

Court for the Columbus Division shall be held at Columbus.

(4) The Americus Division comprises the counties of Ben Hill, Crisp, Dooly, Lee, Macon, Schley, Sumter, Terrell, Webster, and Wilcox.

Court for the Americus Division shall be held at Americus.

(5) The Albany Division comprises the counties of Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, Early, Miller, Mitchell, Turner, and Worth.

Court for the Albany Division shall be held at Albany.

(6) The Valdosta Division comprises the counties of Berrien, Clinch, Cook, Echols, Irwin, Lanier, Lowndes, and Tift.

Court for the Valdosta Division shall be held at Valdosta.

(7) The Thomasville Division comprises the counties of Brooks, Colquitt, Decatur, Grady, Seminole, and Thomas.

Court for the Thomasville Division shall be held at Thomasville.

Southern District

(c) The Southern District comprises six divisions.

(1) The Augusta Division comprises the Counties of Burke, Columbia, Glascock, Jefferson, Lincoln, McDuffie, Richmond, Taliaferro, Warren, and Wilkes.

Court for the Augusta Division shall be held at Augusta.

(2) The Dublin Division comprises the counties of Dodge, Johnson, Laurens, Montgomery, Telfair, Treutlen, and Wheeler.

Court for the Dublin Division shall be held at Dublin.

(3) The Savannah Division comprises the counties of Bryan, Chatham, Effingham, and Liberty.

Court for the Savannah Division shall be held at Savannah.

(4) The Waycross Division comprises the counties of Atkinson, Bacon, Brantley, Charlton, Coffee, Pierce, and Ware.

Court for the Waycross Division shall be held at Waycross.

(5) The Brunswick Division comprises the counties of Appling, Camden, Glynn, Jeff Davis, Long, McIntosh, and Wayne.

Court for the Brunswick Division shall be held at Brunswick.

(6) The Statesboro Division comprises the counties of Bulloch, Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jenkins, Screven, Tattnall, and Toombs.

Court for the Statesboro Division shall be held at Statesboro.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161 cases (113 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Davis v. State, 247 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Davis v. State, 247 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. 1978). · cites it 2× “28 USC § 90 (a) (4). Given the neutral selection method primarily used by the Troup County jury commissioners, the statistical disparity between the percentage of blacks eligible for jury service and the percentage of blacks on the 1975 traverse jury list affords no ground for…”
Billy England, Frances England v. Itt Thompson Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1518 (11th Cir. 1988). “28 U.S.C.A. § 90 (b)(6). England and his wife reside in Crossville, Alabama.”
United States v. Joe Lewis & Tommy Allen Combs, 504 F.2d 92 (6th Cir. 1974). “We regard this as a relatively close issue and do not believe that the distinction between this case and Du-point cited by the Government is dispos-itive. The existence or nonexistence of division lines within a federal judicial district cannot be held to determine a question of…”
United States v. Rosenthal, 482 F. Supp. 867 (M.D. Ga. 1979). “28 U.S.C.A. § 90 (b). Following the passage of the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, the active judges of this court adopted a plan for random jury selection ( 28 U.”
Totilo v. Herbert, 538 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “Moreover, it bears mention that there are related cases already before the Northern District. Accordingly, defendants’ alternative motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.”
Rabinowitz v. United States, 366 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1966). “28 U.S.C.A. § 90 (b) (2). The jury list was compiled in 1959.”
United States v. Greer, 435 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2006). “See 28 U.S.C. § 90 (b)(3); Males, 715 F.2d at 570 n.”
Rothschild Berry Farm v. Serendipity Grp. LLC, 84 F. Supp. 2d 904 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “…this litigation could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. See 28 U.S.C. § 90 (a).”
Gilmore v. Sandersville R.R., 149 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1955). “n extension of the line of the railroad of Sandersville Railroad Company and the construction of a new line of railroad by Sandersville Railroad Company within the meaning of Title 49, Section 1, paragraph 18 of the United States Code, and that said proposed new trackage, if…”
Hardin v. City of Gadsden, 837 F. Supp. 1113 (N.D. Ala. 1993). · cites it 3× “28 U.S.C. § 90 (a) (1993). It maintains a separate MJW and QJW for each of the divisions.”
United States v. Ronnie J. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2006). “See 28 U.S.C. § 90 (b)(3); Males, 715 F.2d at 570 n.”
Hunnicutt v. Burge, 356 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Ga. 1973). “28 U.S.C. §§ 90 (b)(2), 1391 (b), 1392(a), 1393(b).”
Show all 161 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 90(b) — 1 case
United States v. Joe Lewis & Tommy Allen Combs, 504 F.2d 92 (6th Cir. 1974). “We regard this as a relatively close issue and do not believe that the distinction between this case and Du-point cited by the Government is dispos-itive. The existence or nonexistence of division lines within a federal judicial district cannot be held to determine a question of…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 90(c) — 1 case
Casleberry v. Ekwinife (M.D. Ga. 2023).
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.