Sigal v. Sigal
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice.
Pursuant to this Court’s pilot project for divorce cases (now set forth as Supreme Court Rule 34 (4)), we granted appellant Amy Sigal’s non-frivolous application for discretionary appeal of the parties’ final judgment of divorce. Appellant contends, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by entering its decree nunc pro tunc so as to eliminate a “transition period” from supervised to unsupervised visitation that the trial court had orally announced it was providing for the welfare of the couple’s two children. We agree and accordingly reverse the trial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Coleman v. ColemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Norman v. AultSupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
- Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1972
- Swindell v. SwindellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
- Dellinger v. DellingerSupreme Court of Georgia · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- MONDY v. MAGNOLIA ADVANCED MATERIALS, INCSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 2012
- Benson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2026