Artículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Artículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Sección I. JUDICIAL POWER
Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VIII. Transfer of cases.
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.
Any court shall transfer to the appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that jurisdiction or venue lies elsewhere.
Cross references
Transfers and changes of venue in magistrate court proceedings, Uniform Rules for the Magistrate Courts, Rule 18.
Law reviews
For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 383 (1986). For article, ‘‘The Civil Jurisdiction of State and Magistrate Courts,’’ see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 29 (1987).
Otras notas
- 1976 Constitution.
- Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV.
- Improper venue.
- Trial court erred in dismissing an employee’s breach of contract suit against a corporation based on improper venue where the appropriate remedy would have been to transfer the case to another court with proper venue as provided by Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 19.1 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VIII. Farrell v. HRC Armco, Inc., 253 Ga. App. 633, 560 S.E.2d 107 (2002). Where the decedent’s grandniece filed a caveat to the probate of the will in solemn form on grounds of undue influence and contract to make a will and then filed an identical complaint in the superior court, the superior court was an improper venue for the contract to make a will action, as the co-executors did not live in the county where the action was filed as was required under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VI; as a result, the case had to be transferred to the appropriate superior court as provided under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VIII. SunTrust Bank v. Peterson, 263 Ga. App. 378, 587 S.E.2d 849 (2003).
- Venue proper.
- Venue was appropriate in the trial court and the court’s finding to the contrary was erroneous, but the error was harmless given that the trial court retained the case instead of transferring the case, the third-party defendant was not dismissed from the case, and the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the third-party defendant on a separate basis. Bostick v. CMM Props., 327 Ga. App. 137, 755 S.E.2d 895 (2014). Cited in Long v. Bruner, 171 Ga. App. 124, 318 S.E.2d 818 (1984); Unger v. Bryant Equip. Sales & Servs., Inc., 173 Ga. App. 364, 326 S.E.2d 483 (1985); Edwards v. Edmondson, 173 Ga. App. 353, 326 S.E.2d 550 (1985); Bosma v. Gunter, 258 Ga. 664, 373 S.E.2d 368 (1988); Douglas v. Gilbert, 195 Ga. App. 796, 395 S.E.2d 9 (1990); McDonald v. MARTA, 251 Ga. App. 2306, 554 S.E.2d 226 (2001); In re Estate of Dasher, 259 Ga. App. 201, 575 S.E.2d 921 (2002); Live Oak Consulting, Inc. v. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, 281 Ga. App. 791, 637 S.E.2d 455 (2006); Ford v. Hanna, 292 Ga. 500, 739 S.E.2d 309 (2013); In the Interest of M. F., 298 Ga. 138, 780 S.E.2d 291 (2015).
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)-2016-pdf.pdf, Volumen V2, edición 2016, páginas 1004 a 1005; acción de fusión: annotated; SHA-256 del archivo 1b27199d8655.