Legal Opinion · Dissent

Murphy v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 28, 1993No. S93A0512Published

1DissentHunstein, Justice

I do not agree with the majority that a judgment void on its face for a reason other than lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction is not subject to collateral attack more than three years after it has been rendered. In its attempt to reconcile perceived conflicts among subsections (a), (d), and (f) of OCGA § 9-11-60, the majority has equated a judgment “void on its face” under (a) with a judgment void for “[l]ack of jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter” under (d) (1), and applied the three-year limitation period in (f) to collateral attacks on judgments void for any…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Butterworth v. ButterworthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1971
  2. Frost v. FrostSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  3. Robson v. HarwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
  4. Canal Insurance Co. v. CambronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
  5. Mason v. CarterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API