Purcell v. Purcell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Purcell v. Purcell

292 S.E.2d 721, 249 Ga. 625, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 881

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 30, 1982

Docket38658

StatusPublished

This text of 292 S.E.2d 721 (Purcell v. Purcell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Purcell v. Purcell, 292 S.E.2d 721, 249 Ga. 625, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 881 (Ga. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Justice.

The question for decision in this divorce case is whether the trial judge committed error in entering final relief as to the collateral issues involved in this litigation after only an interlocutory hearing had been conducted. The trial judge has found that by consent of the parties there was a final adjudication of the collateral issues at the interlocutory hearing, with decision on some of the issues being reserved in order to allow the parties to file briefs. Since no transcript was made of the interlocutory hearing, there is no basis for reversing the foregoing finding of the trial judge. See, e.g., Willadsen v. Willadsen, 230 Ga. 607 (198 SE2d 318) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Janney E. Sanders, for appellee.

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

Marshall, Justice.

The question for decision in this divorce case is whether the trial judge committed error in entering final relief as to the collateral issues involved in this litigation after only an interlocutory hearing had been conducted. The trial judge has found that by consent of the parties there was a final adjudication of the collateral issues at the interlocutory hearing, with decision on some of the issues being reserved in order to allow the parties to file briefs. Since no transcript was made of the interlocutory hearing, there is no basis for reversing the foregoing finding of the trial judge. See, e.g., Willadsen v. Willadsen, 230 Ga. 607 (198 SE2d 318) (1973).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Janney E. Sanders, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 S.E.2d 721, 249 Ga. 625, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-purcell-ga-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack