Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 14, 1995No. A95A0465 to A95A0470Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBeasley, Chief Judge

1. I do not entirely agree with Division 1 of the majority. OCGA § 9-11-42, as part of the Civil Practice Act, governs the combining of separate cases for the court proceedings. It does not allow the procedure utilized in the court below because all parties did not consent. There is no other authority for the court to take the action it did, because the Georgia statute, unlike its federal counterpart, severely limits the trial court’s authority to control the conduct of hearings and trials. It would make good sense as a matter of economics and efficiency, and it would achieve the end which…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Banks v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Douglas County v. AbercrombieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API