Ali S. Muhammad v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 7, 2016
DocketA17A0518
StatusPublished

This text of Ali S. Muhammad v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois (Ali S. Muhammad v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ali S. Muhammad v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 23, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0518. ALI S. MUHAMMAD v. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS.

Ali Muhammad, represented by counsel, filed this action for damages against Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois (“Progressive”) and Brett Bradley. The trial court later granted Progressive’s motion to dismiss Muhammad’s claims against it. Muhammad, proceeding pro se, then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the record contains no indication that Muhammad’s counsel has withdrawn from representing him in this case. Consequently, Muhammad’s pro se notice of appeal is a nullity because, based on the current record, he currently is represented by counsel in this action and thus may not attempt to represent himself. See Tolbert v. Toole, 296 Ga. 357, 361-363 (3) (767 SE2d 24) (2014); Jacobsen v. Haldi, 210 Ga. App. 817, 818-819 (1) (437 SE2d 819) (1993). Second, because Muhammad’s claims against Bradley remain pending below, Muhammad was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the order granting Progressive’s motion to dismiss. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). For the above reasons, Muhammad’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 11/23/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Jacobsen v. Haldi
437 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Tolbert v. Toole
767 S.E.2d 24 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2014)
Boyd v. State
383 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ali S. Muhammad v. Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ali-s-muhammad-v-progressive-premier-insurance-company-of-illinois-gactapp-2016.