---
title: Marshall v. Lundy
collection: opinions
id: S23A1067
cite_as: Marshall v. Lundy, S23A1067 (Ga. Sep. 19, 2023)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1067
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1067.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1067/text
source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9426919/marshall-v-lundy/
date: 2023-09-19
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2023.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0758.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A0460.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 672
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1067.md?full=1
docket: S23A1067
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: civil
authoring_justice: Per Curiam
disposition: Affirmed without opinion
vote: All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating
word_count: 44
date_filed_source: courtlistener
record_source: courtlistener
legal_areas:
  - civil procedure
upstream_id: "9426919"
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Marshall v. Lundy

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S23A1067, filed 2023-09-19.

## Opinion

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided: September 19, 2023

S23A1067. MARSHALL v. LUNDY.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a lower court's judgment in a dispute between two individuals without issuing a written explanation, using a court rule that allows affirmance without opinion.

### Plain-language summary

This case, Marshall v. Lundy, involved a dispute between two people that reached the Supreme Court of Georgia after a decision by a lower court. The opinion itself does not describe the underlying facts or legal question in dispute.
Instead of writing a full explanation, the court used Supreme Court Rule 59, which lets it affirm a lower court's ruling without spelling out its reasoning. The court simply upheld the judgment below, with nearly all Justices agreeing and one Justice not taking part in the decision.

### Holding, as summarized

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment without writing an opinion, relying on Supreme Court Rule 59, which permits affirmance without explanation when the court determines no opinion is necessary.

### Disposition

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur, except Colvin, J., not participating.

### Why it matters

This kind of short, unexplained order shows how appellate courts sometimes resolve cases they consider straightforward, without setting new legal rules. For the parties involved, it means the lower court's decision stands as final.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (672 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1067.md?full=1