Cofer v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cofer v. Williams

232 S.E.2d 610, 141 Ga. App. 72, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1977

Docket53151

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 S.E.2d 610 (Cofer v. Williams) 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

Cofer v. Williams, 232 S.E.2d 610, 141 Ga. App. 72, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1769 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

"Compliance with Code Ann. § 3-116 is an absolute condition precedent before a valid judgment may be entered against the State of Georgia or any of its officials acting in their official capacity. Otherwise, the judgment is void. The record in this case does not affirmatively show that the requirements of the Code section were met. The judgment is therefore void on its face. A void judgment may be attacked in any court and by any person. Code Ann. § 81A-160 (a). Edwards v. Lumpkin, 112 Ga. App. 128 (144 SE2d 119), affirmed 221 Ga. 486 (145 SE2d 518).” Hawes v. Bigbie, 120 Ga. App. 294 (170 SE2d 302). Accord, State of Georgia v. Chiles, 129 Ga. App. 645 (200 SE2d 501).

In the instant case there is nothing to show that the Attorney General was notified, appeared or waived notice as required by Code Ann. § 3-116 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 625). Hence, the judgment rendered is not sustainable.

Judgment reversed.

Stolz and Shulman, JJ., concur. *73 Saliba & Newsom, Walter F. Newsom, for appellee.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

"Compliance with Code Ann. § 3-116 is an absolute condition precedent before a valid judgment may be entered against the State of Georgia or any of its officials acting in their official capacity. Otherwise, the judgment is void. The record in this case does not affirmatively show that the requirements of the Code section were met. The judgment is therefore void on its face. A void judgment may be attacked in any court and by any person. Code Ann. § 81A-160 (a). Edwards v. Lumpkin, 112 Ga. App. 128 (144 SE2d 119), affirmed 221 Ga. 486 (145 SE2d 518).” Hawes v. Bigbie, 120 Ga. App. 294 (170 SE2d 302). Accord, State of Georgia v. Chiles, 129 Ga. App. 645 (200 SE2d 501).

In the instant case there is nothing to show that the Attorney General was notified, appeared or waived notice as required by Code Ann. § 3-116 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 625). Hence, the judgment rendered is not sustainable.

Judgment reversed.

Stolz and Shulman, JJ., concur. *73 Saliba & Newsom, Walter F. Newsom, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.E.2d 610, 141 Ga. App. 72, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cofer-v-williams-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack