---
title: Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI. All other cases.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=1047
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-v.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 80955
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi.md?notes=all&start=8678
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / JUDICIAL BRANCH / VENUE
---

# Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI. All other cases.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

All other civil cases, except juvenile court cases as may otherwise be provided by the Juvenile Court Code of Georgia, shall be tried in the county where the defendant resides; venue as to corporations, foreign and domestic, shall be as provided by law; and all criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except cases in the superior courts where the judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in such county.

## Cross References

Venue in civil cases generally, § 9-10-30 et seq. Venue of actions against corporations, § 14-2-510. Venue in juvenile proceedings, § 15-11-15. Venue in criminal cases generally, § 17-2-2. Venue of actions against insurance companies, § 33-4-1.

## Editor's Notes

Some of the cases noted under this subheading were decided prior to the addition of the provision re-Determining Venue (Cont’d) 4. Corporations Generally (Cont’d) garding prescribing of venue as to corporations by law. clare residence of corporations. Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 127 S.E.2d 454 (1962).

The right of the General Assembly to create a corporation carries with it the power to designate its venue. Davenport v. Petroleum Delivery Serv. of Ga., Inc., 134 Ga. App. 418, 214 S.E.2d 692, aff’d, 235 Ga. 116, 218 S.E.2d 848 (1975).

Since the General Assembly may fix the residence of a corporation under this paragraph, there appears to be no reason it cannot also fix the residence of a corporation under Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Para. IV (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV). White v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 233 Ga. 919, 213 S.E.2d 879 (1975) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI).

Venue of corporation provided by

Some of the cases noted under this subheading were decided prior to the addition of the provision regarding prescribing of venue as to corporations by law.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘Criminal Venue and Related Problems,’’ see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 331 (1966). For article summarizing law relating to jurisdiction and venue over domestic and foreign corporations in Georgia, and service therein, see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (1970). For article discussing venue problems in juvenile court practice and suggesting solutions, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (1972). For article, ‘‘Current Problems With Venue in Georgia,’’ see 12 Ga. St. B.J. 71 (1975). For article discussing venue and jurisdictional requirements for third-party practice, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 13 (1978). For article surveying judicial developments in Georgia’s trial practice and procedure laws, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 249 (1979). For article surveying developments in Georgia criminal law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 95 (1981). For article surveying developments in Georgia local government law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (1981). For article surveying developments in Georgia trial practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1981). For survey article on recent developments in Georgia juvenile law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 395 (1982). For annual survey of domestic relations cases, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 173 (2005).

For comment on Collier v. Duffell, 165 Ga. 421, 141 S.E. 194 (1927), see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 50 (1927). For comment, ‘‘Jurisdiction over Nonresidents in Georgia: Crowder v. Ginn,’’ see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 201 (1982). For comment, ‘‘Inappropriate Forum or Inappropriate Law? A Choice of Law Solution to the Jurisdictional Standoff Between the United States and Latin America,’’ see 60 Emory L.J. 1437 (2011).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Para. VI.

## This Paragraph Is a Venue provi-O.C.G.A. § 16-9-121 Is Constitutional.

— O.C.G.A. § 16-9-125 complies with Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI; since the crime of identity fraud, as defined by O.C.G.A. §§ 16-9-121 and 16-9-125, when read in para materia, takes place in the county where the victim and his or her personal information are located, there is no constitutional bar to trying the defendant in that county. State v. Mayze, 280 Ga. 5, 622 S.E.2d 836 (2005).

## O.c.g.a. § 19-9-62 Constitutional.

O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62(a) did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI; a trial court correctly ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction over a father’s post-decree child custody modification action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-9-62 and that personal jurisdiction over the mother was unnecessary in order for it to address the requested modification. Devito v. Devito, 280 Ga. 367, 628 S.E.2d 108 (2006).

## Applies to in Personam Cases.

This paragraph comprehends cases in which a judgment in personam may be recovered, not cases respecting title to land. Wall v. Federal Land Bank, 240 Ga. 236, 240 S.E.2d 76 (1977) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI).

## Jurisdiction and Venue Distinguished.

Jurisdiction means the power of a court to render a binding judgment in the case, and venue means the place of trial. Williams v. Fuller, 244 Ga. 846, 262 S.E.2d 135 (1979).

In a borrower’s suit asserting various claims against a lender, which was a citizen of Delaware and California, and an appraiser in connection with a loan that encumbered the borrower’s property with a debt that exceeded the property’s value, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 did not exist where the borrower and the appraiser were both citizens of Georgia; the fact that the borrower may have filed the suit in an inappropriate venue under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI did not render the appraiser’s joinder fraudulent under the doctrine of fraudulent pleading because such a pleading of jurisdictional facts did not destroy diversity, as the appraiser was still a resident of Georgia. Austin v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2007).

Venue in criminal case is a jurisdictional fact which must be proved. Wright v. State, 219 Ga. App. 119, 464 S.E.2d 216 (1995).

General Assembly cannot declare persons domiciled and residing in one county residents of and

## Domiciliaries of Another County.

The General Assembly has no right to provide that a natural person, an individual, who lives and has a domicile and residence in one county, and the person’s domicile and residence is fixed there under the law as it stands, should be deemed also to be a resident, for certain purposes, of another county. A general law may fix the general place of the person’s residence; but when the person has a residence and domicile fixed and established in accordance with the law, the legislature cannot declare that the person may also be a resident of another county at the same time. Youmans v. Hickman, 179 Ga. 684, 177 S.E. 238 (1934). sions may not be altered or changed by the legislature or the courts and the adoption of procedural devices for adjudicating claims of various parties in the same action does not effect a change in the venue requirements of the Constitution. Pemberton v. Purifoy, 128 Ga. App. 892, 198 S.E.2d 356 (1973); Haley v. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank, 141 Ga. App. 13, 232 S.E.2d 362 (1977). not be shifted to another county where the individual has a business, so that the latter county may be the proper venue of a suit against the individual because of a tort committed by the individual’s agents in the county where the tort was committed. Youmans v. Hickman, 179 Ga. 684, 177 S.E. 238 (1934).

Trial by court with jurisdiction is

## The Constitutional Venue provi-The Residence of an Individual Canconstitutional Right.

It is not within the power of the General Assembly, by any exercise of its legitimate legislative functions, to impose limitations and restrictions which deprive the defendant of the defendant’s constitutional right to be tried in a court that has jurisdiction of the defendant’s case. Parks v. State, 212 Ga. 433, 93 S.E.2d 663 (1956).

The doctrine of forum non conveniens has never been expressly sanctioned in the Georgia courts. Smith v. Board of Regents, 165 Ga. App. 565, 302 S.E.2d 124 (1983).

Change of venue based on forum

## Non Conveniens Improper.

Because the relevant constitutional and statutory authority places venue, absent certain specified circumstances, squarely and solely in the county of the defendant’s residence, and because Georgia’s courts have not seen fit generally to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Smith v. Board of Regents, 165 Ga. App. 565, 302 S.E.2d 124 (1983).

## Venue Rights May Be Waived.

The venue rights established under the Georgia Constitution may be waived. Holcomb v. Ellis, 259 Ga. 625, 385 S.E.2d 670 (1989).

O.C.G.A. § 17-2-2(b) does not violate

## This Paragraph.

Section 17-2-2(b), establishing venue when crime is committed on or immediately adjacent to boundary line between two counties, is not in violation of this paragraph, providing that criminal trials be held in county in which crime was committed. Adsitt v. State, 248 Ga. 237, 282 S.E.2d 305 (1981) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI).


> The printed notes continue for 80,955 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-vi.md?notes=all&start=8678