Strom v. London

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Strom v. London

572 S.E.2d 409, 257 Ga. App. 889, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3081, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1337

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 2002

DocketA02A1480

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 572 S.E.2d 409 (Strom v. London) 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

Strom v. London, 572 S.E.2d 409, 257 Ga. App. 889, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3081, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1337 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, Judge.

Appellants Priscilla Strom and Gainesville Surgical Associates have failed to file an enumeration of errors as required by OCGA § 5-6-40, either separately or as part of their brief. See Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) (enumeration of errors shall be Part 2 of appellant’s brief and need not be filed separately) and 27 (a) (2) (Part 2 of the appellant’s brief shall consist of the enumeration of errors). “This Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia have made clear that failure to file an enumeration of errors requires dismissal of an appeal. . . . [Cits.]” Miles v. Emmons, 234 Ga. App. 487 (507 SE2d 762) (1998); see Lowery v. Smith, 225 Ga. 814 (171 SE2d 500) (1969) (“The appellant has failed to file an enumeration of errors, as is required by the Appellate Practice Act. [Cits.] Therefore the appeal must be dismissed.”); cf. Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539 (523 SE2d 1) (1999) (“In order for a Georgia appellate court to review a trial court ruling for legal error, a party must set forth in the enumeration of errors the allegedly erroneous ruling. OCGA § 5-6-40. The appellate court is precluded from reviewing the propriety of a lower court’s ruling if the ruling is not contained in the enumeration of errors. [Cits.]”). Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

Moreover, we note that the primary issue contested in appellants’ brief is a factual finding by the trial court that appellant Strom resided indifferently at two places and that no evidence showed that any election by her of the Gainesville residence as her domicile was generally known among those with whom she transacted business in this State. See OCGA § 19-2-2 (a). As evidence supported the trial court’s findings, the appeal lacked merit in any case. See Allen v. McDermott, 110 Ga. App. 536, 538 (2) (139 SE2d 143) (1964) (findings of fact on residency are upheld if supported by evidence).

Appeal dismissed.

Blackburn, C. J., and Johnson, P. J., concur. *890 Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, David W. Davenport, Katherine A. Eichelberger, for appellee.

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

Miller, Judge.

Appellants Priscilla Strom and Gainesville Surgical Associates have failed to file an enumeration of errors as required by OCGA § 5-6-40, either separately or as part of their brief. See Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) (enumeration of errors shall be Part 2 of appellant’s brief and need not be filed separately) and 27 (a) (2) (Part 2 of the appellant’s brief shall consist of the enumeration of errors). “This Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia have made clear that failure to file an enumeration of errors requires dismissal of an appeal. . . . [Cits.]” Miles v. Emmons, 234 Ga. App. 487 (507 SE2d 762) (1998); see Lowery v. Smith, 225 Ga. 814 (171 SE2d 500) (1969) (“The appellant has failed to file an enumeration of errors, as is required by the Appellate Practice Act. [Cits.] Therefore the appeal must be dismissed.”); cf. Felix v. State, 271 Ga. 534, 539 (523 SE2d 1) (1999) (“In order for a Georgia appellate court to review a trial court ruling for legal error, a party must set forth in the enumeration of errors the allegedly erroneous ruling. OCGA § 5-6-40. The appellate court is precluded from reviewing the propriety of a lower court’s ruling if the ruling is not contained in the enumeration of errors. [Cits.]”). Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

Moreover, we note that the primary issue contested in appellants’ brief is a factual finding by the trial court that appellant Strom resided indifferently at two places and that no evidence showed that any election by her of the Gainesville residence as her domicile was generally known among those with whom she transacted business in this State. See OCGA § 19-2-2 (a). As evidence supported the trial court’s findings, the appeal lacked merit in any case. See Allen v. McDermott, 110 Ga. App. 536, 538 (2) (139 SE2d 143) (1964) (findings of fact on residency are upheld if supported by evidence).

Appeal dismissed.

Blackburn, C. J., and Johnson, P. J., concur. *890 Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, David W. Davenport, Katherine A. Eichelberger, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.E.2d 409, 257 Ga. App. 889, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3081, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strom-v-london-gactapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack