Chris Allen Tucker, Jr v. Mark Maddox

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 22, 2024
DocketA25I0081
StatusPublished

This text of Chris Allen Tucker, Jr v. Mark Maddox (Chris Allen Tucker, Jr v. Mark Maddox) 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
Chris Allen Tucker, Jr v. Mark Maddox, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 22, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25I0081. CHRIS ALLEN TUCKER, JR. v. MARK MADDOX et al.

In this defamation action, defendant Chris Tucker, Jr., filed this timely application for interlocutory review of a trial court order granting the plaintiffs’ “Motion for New Trial.” In that order, the trial court set aside a prior order granting Tucker’s motion to strike the lawsuit pursuant to Georgia’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute, OCGA § 9-11-11.1, and thereby effectively denied Tucker’s OCGA § 9-11-11.1 motion to strike. See Planet Ins. Co. v. Ferrell, 228 Ga. App. 264, 266 (491 SE2d 471) (1997) (“[P]leadings, motions and orders are to be construed according to their substance and function and not merely as to their nomenclature . . . .”). Under OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (e), “[a]n order granting or denying a motion to dismiss or a motion to strike [under OCGA § 9-11-11.1] shall be subject to direct appeal in accordance with subsection (a) of Code Section 5-6-34.” Accord OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (13) (rendering “[a]ll judgments or orders entered pursuant to Code Section 9-11-11.1” directly appealable). The trial court’s order therefore is directly appealable under OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (a) (13) and 9-11-11.1 (e). “This Court will grant a timely application for interlocutory review if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the applicants have not otherwise filed a notice of appeal.” Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486, n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). Accordingly, this application for interlocutory review is hereby GRANTED. See id. Tucker shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). If Tucker already has filed a notice of appeal in the trial court, then he need not file a second notice. The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/22/2024 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

Planet Insurance v. Ferrell
491 S.E.2d 471 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Spivey v. Hembree
602 S.E.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chris Allen Tucker, Jr v. Mark Maddox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chris-allen-tucker-jr-v-mark-maddox-gactapp-2024.