Artis v. Gaither

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Artis v. Gaither

404 S.E.2d 322, 199 Ga. App. 114, 64 Fulton County D. Rep. 17, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 382

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 12, 1991

DocketA90A2081

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 404 S.E.2d 322 (Artis v. Gaither) 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

Artis v. Gaither, 404 S.E.2d 322, 199 Ga. App. 114, 64 Fulton County D. Rep. 17, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

We granted an application by Raymond Artis and Josephine Freeman, the appellants, to bring an interlocutory appeal from an or der granting summary judgment to the Motors Insurance Company (“MIC”), Freeman’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier, because there was no service of process upon MIC within the period of the statute of limitation. See Vaughn v. Collum, 236 Ga. 582 (224 SE2d 416).

“Because a grant of summary judgment is subject to direct ap peal [compare Williams v. Thomas, 183 Ga. App. 51 (1) (357 SE2 872); and Peeples v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. App. 888 (1) (377 SE2d *115 889)] see OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), and because the interlocutory appeal procedure is applicable only to those orders, decisions, and judgments which are ‘not otherwise subject to direct appeal’ (OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)), we conclude that the application was improvidently granted; and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.” Terrell v. City Wide Cab, 180 Ga. App. 184 (348 SE2d 575).

Decided March 12, 1991. William M. Andrews, for appellants. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Guerry R. Moore, William P. Claxton, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

We granted an application by Raymond Artis and Josephine Freeman, the appellants, to bring an interlocutory appeal from an or der granting summary judgment to the Motors Insurance Company (“MIC”), Freeman’s uninsured motorist insurance carrier, because there was no service of process upon MIC within the period of the statute of limitation. See Vaughn v. Collum, 236 Ga. 582 (224 SE2d 416).

“Because a grant of summary judgment is subject to direct ap peal [compare Williams v. Thomas, 183 Ga. App. 51 (1) (357 SE2 872); and Peeples v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. App. 888 (1) (377 SE2d *115 889)] see OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), and because the interlocutory appeal procedure is applicable only to those orders, decisions, and judgments which are ‘not otherwise subject to direct appeal’ (OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)), we conclude that the application was improvidently granted; and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.” Terrell v. City Wide Cab, 180 Ga. App. 184 (348 SE2d 575).

Decided March 12, 1991. William M. Andrews, for appellants. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Guerry R. Moore, William P. Claxton, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 S.E.2d 322, 199 Ga. App. 114, 64 Fulton County D. Rep. 17, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/artis-v-gaither-gactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack