Artículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Artículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Sección I. JUDICIAL POWER
Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. IV. Exercise of judicial power.
Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
Una disposición constitucional que se muestra como vigente está vigente tal como está impresa en el volumen. Una decisión judicial puede hacer inaplicable una disposición impresa sin cambiar el volumen, y el volumen no registra eso.
El texto siguiente es la ley tal como la imprime el estado, en inglés.
Each court may exercise such powers as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate its judgments; but only the superior and appellate courts and state-wide business court shall have the power to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction. Each superior court, state court, and other courts of record and the state-wide business court may grant new trials on legal grounds.
History
Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 6, § 1, Para. 4; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1130, § 1/HR 993.
Editor's notes
The constitutional amendment (Ga. L. 2018, p. 1130, § 1/HR 993), which inserted “and state-wide business court” in the first sentence and inserted “and the state-wide business court” in the second sentence, was ratified at the general election held on November 6, 2018.
Law reviews
For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 253 (2018).
Otras notas
- to grant writ of mandamus.
- Georgia Supreme Court lacked original jurisdiction to grant a petition for writ of mandamus as the petition was unconnected to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Arnold v. Alexander, 321 Ga. 330, 914 S.E.2d 311, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 63 (2025). Juvenile denied due process when in contempt due to cell phone sound-
- ing.
- Judgment of criminal contempt imposed against a juvenile after the juvenile’s cell phone sounded during a dependency hearing was reversed because the juvenile court judge did not include any finding that the juvenile was given an opportunity to speak on the juvenile’s own behalf or attempt to explain the juvenile’s actions before the juvenile was found in contempt; thus, the record did not show that the juvenile was extended the minimum requirements of due process of law. In re Williams, 347 Ga. App. 189, 818 S.E.2d 260, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 483 (2018).
- Constitutionality of Service Delivery Strategy Act.
- Trial court erred by finding that the Service Delivery Strategy Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.1(d)(2), was unconstitutional because it did not permit the trial court to direct that the parties enter into a particular agreement and, therefore, did not invade the province of the legislative branch by imposing a tax or allocating the proceeds of that tax. City of Union Point v. Greene County, 303 Ga. 449, 812 S.E.2d 278, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 185 (2018), overruled in part, City of College Park v. Clayton County, 306 Ga. 301, 830 S.E.2d 179, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 438 (2019).
Leer la página oficial (el PDF del estado, abierto en la página de la que se leyó este texto).
Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
Texto leído de 2ga-const-(v2)-pdf.pdf, Volumen V2, edición 2016, suplemento de 2025, página 85; acción de fusión: replaced; SHA-256 del archivo 6dc4b5d1cb11.