FXM, P.C D/B/A FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 11, 2018
DocketA18A1545
StatusPublished

This text of FXM, P.C D/B/A FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A. (FXM, P.C D/B/A FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A.) 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
FXM, P.C D/B/A FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A., (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 09, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1545. FXM, P.C. d/b/a FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A. et al.

In this civil action, the plaintiff FXM, P.C. d/b/a Frank X. Moore Law, has filed in this Court a direct appeal of the trial court’s order granting motions to seal portions of the record that were filed by several defendants.1 Pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 21.4, “a[n] order limiting access [to court records] may be reviewed by interlocutory application to the Supreme Court.” Recently, the Supreme Court discussed whether it has jurisdiction over cases involving an order so limiting access where the case does not otherwise fall within its jurisdiction:

In most cases, our appellate jurisdiction is prescribed by the Constitution. . . . The basis for our appellate jurisdiction under Rule 21.4 is unclear in cases that are not otherwise within our appellate jurisdiction. It may be that in cases not otherwise within our exclusive jurisdiction, direct appellate jurisdiction is vested instead in the Court of Appeals.

Merchant Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609, 613 n.2 (1) (a) (800 SE2d 557)

1 The plaintiff also filed in the Supreme Court an application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s order, which the Supreme Court denied. See Supreme Court Case No. S18I0798 (denied Mar. 1, 2018). (2017); see also In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 269 Ga. 589 (502 SE2d 720) (1998) (discussing Rule 21). However, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the issue in Merchant Law Firm, P.C. Thus, it appears that jurisdiction over the instant appeal may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/09/2018 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

Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Medical Clinic, Inc.
476 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
In Re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution
502 S.E.2d 720 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998)
The Merchant Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson
800 S.E.2d 557 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
FXM, P.C D/B/A FRANK X. MOORE LAW v. PNC BANK, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fxm-pc-dba-frank-x-moore-law-v-pnc-bank-na-gactapp-2018.