Reversal and Affirmance; Minutes and Reports to Show Concurrences and Dissents

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Courts
  4. Supreme Court
  5. General Provisions
  6. Reversal and Affirmance; Minutes and Reports to Show Concurrences and Dissents

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. In all cases decided by the Supreme Court, the concurrence of a majority of the Justices shall be essential to a judgment of reversal. If the Justices are evenly divided, the judgment of the court below shall stand affirmed. In all cases decided by the court, with at least a quorum but less than nine Justices, the concurrence of at least five shall be essential to the rendition of a judgment.
  2. Both the minutes and the printed official reports shall show how many and which Justices concurred in each judgment rendered and which, if any, dissented therefrom.

(Ga. L. 1896, p. 42, § 5; Civil Code 1910, § 6116; Code 1933, § 24-4015; Ga. L. 1983, p. 956, § 3; Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 4-3/HB 927.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 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.'"

Law reviews.

- For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 205 (2016).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 6-1611, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Trial court affirmed if Supreme Court evenly divided.

- In case of a decision by entire court of six justices, if the court is evenly divided, the judgment of the trial court stands affirmed by operation of law. Inter-City Coach Lines v. City of Atlanta, 170 Ga. 905, 154 S.E. 352 (1930) (decided under Ga. Const. 1877, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VIII).

"Full bench rule" repealed.

- "Full bench rule" wherein unanimous decisions of Supreme Court could not be overruled except by unanimous decisions has been repealed; stability and certainty in law are desirable, but when a majority of the court determines that stability must give way to justice, then justice prevails. Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 216 S.E.2d 839 (1975) (decided under former Code 1933, § 6-1611).

Cited in Irby v. Allen & Co., 161 Ga. 858, 131 S.E. 910 (1926); Ward v. Big Apple Super Mkts. of Bolton Rd., Inc., 223 Ga. 756, 158 S.E.2d 396 (1967).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.