T. F. R. v. U. R.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

T. F. R. v. U. R.

DecidedJuly 8, 2015

DocketA15I0219

StatusPublished

This text of T. F. R. v. U. R. (T. F. R. v. U. R.) 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

T. F. R. v. U. R., (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ July 01, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15I0218. TAMIKA FULLER v. C. B. BRIDGES; A15I0219. T. F. R. v. U. R.

In these applications for interlocutory appeal, the applicants mistakenly identified the applications as discretionary. The applicants have filed a motion to rename the documents as applications for interlocutory appeal.1 Those motions are hereby GRANTED. Upon consideration of the applications for interlocutory appeal, however, it is ordered that they be hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 07/01/2015 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

1 It is well-settled that, in construing pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature. See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d 397) (2010). Here, the orders were clearly interlocutory and a certificate of immediate review was included. Thus, regardless of nomenclature, we would construe the application as interlocutory.

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