Georgia CommonsArtículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Artículo VI. JUDICIAL BRANCH · Sección V. COURT OF APPEALS
Art. VI, Sec. V, Para. V. Equal division of court.
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.
In the event of an equal division of the Judges when sitting as a body, the case shall be immediately transmitted to the Supreme Court.
Otras notas
- 1976 Constitution.
- Art. VI, Sec. II, Paras. IV and VIII.
- one question in case.
- This paragraph contemplates the transfer by the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of cases where the judges of the Court of Appeals are equally divided on all questions in the case which would require an affirmance or reversal of the judgment of the trial court, and does not provide for a transfer by that court to the Supreme Court of any case where there is an equal division between the judges of the Court of Appeals on an isolated question in the case. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Godard, 211 Ga. 41, 83 S.E.2d 591 (1954) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. V, Para. V). When the judges of the Court of Appeals are not equally divided in the case at bar on all questions presented by the writ of error which would either require an affirmance or a reversal of the judgments excepted to, but only as to one of the questions in the case, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the case. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Clinard, 211 Ga. 340, 86 S.E.2d 1 (1955). If six judges would affirm and six
- would not.
- In a review of a denial of a motion to suppress, six judges of the Georgia Court of Appeals would have affirmed, and six would not have affirmed; because there was an equal division, the Court of Appeals should have immediately transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia, pursuant to Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. V, Para. V. The judges’ differences of opinion about whether the judgment of the trial court should be set aside as ‘‘reversed’’ or instead as ‘‘vacated’’ were not dispositive. Rodriguez v. State, 295 Ga. 362, 761 S.E.2d 19 (2014). Cited in Rustin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 254 Ga. 494, 330 S.E.2d 356 (1985); Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495, 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993); Rai v. Reid, 294 Ga. 270, 751 S.E.2d 821 (2013); Ford Motor Co. v. Conley, 294 Ga. 530, 757 S.E.2d 20 (2014).
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 1103 a 1104; acción de fusión: annotated; SHA-256 del archivo 1b27199d8655.