Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

402 S.E.2d 320, 198 Ga. App. 544, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 184

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 11, 1991

DocketA91A0520

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 402 S.E.2d 320 (Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia) 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

Morman v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 402 S.E.2d 320, 198 Ga. App. 544, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Beasley, Judge.

This is a direct appeal from an order denying a biological father’s motion to intervene, OCGA § 9-11-24, as a plaintiff in an action for the wrongful death of his three-year-old illegitimate daughter. In the order, the court also made a determination that the father would not be entitled to any proceeds of the action. The parties had agreed that the court would determine the issue of judgment apportionment, see OCGA § 19-7-1 (C) (6), at the time it considered any right of intervention.

The denial of a motion to intervene is not a final judgment and thus, is reviewable under the interlocutory appeal procedure. See OCGA § 5-6-34; Wallace v. Bledsoe, 244 Ga. 674 (261 SE2d 399) (1979); Atlanta Dev. Co. v. Peel & Sons, 189 Ga. App. 453 (377 SE2d 552) (1988). The denial of apportionment in this pre-judgment circumstance is also an interlocutory matter inasmuch as the case is still within the breast of the trial court and subject to further action in this regard, although not with regard to movant.

Pursuant to the interlocutory appeal procedure, appellant obtained a certificate of immediate review from the court’s order and petitioned this Court. The application for interlocutory appeal was dismissed because the certificate of immediate review was filed 16 days after issuance of the order sought to be appealed, making it untimely. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). The present direct appeal from the interlocutory ruling is unauthorized and therefore, must likewise be dismissed. Compare Kipp v. Rawson, 193 Ga. App. 532, 535 (4) (a) (388 SE2d 409) (1989) in which the failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedure was not fatal to consideration of a denial of intervention because the denial was reviewable as part of the timely review of a subsequent final judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

Banke, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. *545 Walbert & Hermann, Paul D. Hermann, Paul W. Roop II, Herbert E. Phipps, for appellant. Perry, Walters & Lippitt, Jesse W. Walters, Jones, Cork & Miller, Thomas C. Alexander, for appellees.

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

Beasley, Judge.

This is a direct appeal from an order denying a biological father’s motion to intervene, OCGA § 9-11-24, as a plaintiff in an action for the wrongful death of his three-year-old illegitimate daughter. In the order, the court also made a determination that the father would not be entitled to any proceeds of the action. The parties had agreed that the court would determine the issue of judgment apportionment, see OCGA § 19-7-1 (C) (6), at the time it considered any right of intervention.

The denial of a motion to intervene is not a final judgment and thus, is reviewable under the interlocutory appeal procedure. See OCGA § 5-6-34; Wallace v. Bledsoe, 244 Ga. 674 (261 SE2d 399) (1979); Atlanta Dev. Co. v. Peel & Sons, 189 Ga. App. 453 (377 SE2d 552) (1988). The denial of apportionment in this pre-judgment circumstance is also an interlocutory matter inasmuch as the case is still within the breast of the trial court and subject to further action in this regard, although not with regard to movant.

Pursuant to the interlocutory appeal procedure, appellant obtained a certificate of immediate review from the court’s order and petitioned this Court. The application for interlocutory appeal was dismissed because the certificate of immediate review was filed 16 days after issuance of the order sought to be appealed, making it untimely. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). The present direct appeal from the interlocutory ruling is unauthorized and therefore, must likewise be dismissed. Compare Kipp v. Rawson, 193 Ga. App. 532, 535 (4) (a) (388 SE2d 409) (1989) in which the failure to follow interlocutory appeal procedure was not fatal to consideration of a denial of intervention because the denial was reviewable as part of the timely review of a subsequent final judgment.

Appeal dismissed.

Banke, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. *545 Walbert & Hermann, Paul D. Hermann, Paul W. Roop II, Herbert E. Phipps, for appellant. Perry, Walters & Lippitt, Jesse W. Walters, Jones, Cork & Miller, Thomas C. Alexander, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 S.E.2d 320, 198 Ga. App. 544, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morman-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-system-of-georgia-gactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack