Executive Jet Sales, Inc. v. Jet America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 33605,33605 |
| Citation | 242 Ga. 307,248 S.E.2d 676 |
| Parties | EXECUTIVE JET SALES, INC. v. JET AMERICA, INC., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
N. Forrest Montet, David Leonard, Atlanta, for appellant.
Donald R. Andersen, J. Arthur Mozley, Atlanta, Phillips, Hart & Mozley, Atlanta, for appellees.
This court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Division 7 of its opinion in Executive Jet Sales, Inc. v. Jet America, Inc., 145 Ga.App. 258, 243 S.E.2d 584 (1978), dismissing Executive Jet's appeal on the grounds that it was from a nonfinal order and the interlocutory review procedures set out in Code Ann. § 6-701(a)2 had not been followed.
Executive Jet was a co-defendant in a suit filed by Jet America. Both defendants filed motions. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss of Gates Lear Jet, the other co-defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss filed by Executive Jet. When Jet America appealed the grant of Gates Lear Jet's motion to dismiss, Executive Jet cross appealed, enumerating as error the trial court's failure to grant its motion to dismiss. In a consolidated opinion, the Court of Appeals dismissed Executive Jet's appeal for the reasons recited above.
Executive Jet contends that Code Ann. §§ 6-802 and 6-803(a) allow it to file, as a matter of right, its cross appeal as to the trial court's judgment denying its motion to dismiss when Jet America appealed the trial court's judgment dismissing Gates Lear Jet from the case. This court agrees. The last sentence of Code Ann. § 6-802 provides: "All parties to the proceedings in the lower court shall be parties on appeal, and shall be served with a copy of the notice of appeal in the manner hereinafter prescribed." Code Ann. § 6-803(a) provides in part: "In civil cases, the appellee may institute cross-appeal by filing notice thereof within 15 days from service of the notice of appeal by appellant, and the appellee may present for adjudication on the cross-appeal all errors or rulings adversely affecting him, and in no case shall the appellee be required to institute an independent appeal on his own right, although the appellee may at his option file an independent appeal." Finally, Code Ann. § 6-701(b) provides in pertinent part: "Where an appeal is taken under any provision of paragraph (a) above, all judgments, rulings or orders rendered in the case which are raised on appeal, and which may affect the proceedings below, shall be reviewed and determined by the appellate court, Without regard to the appealability of such judgment, Ruling or order standing alone, and without regard to whether the judgment, ruling or order appealed from was final, or was appealable by some other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vibratech, Inc. v. Frost
...America v. Gates Learjet Corp., 145 Ga.App. 258, 260(1), 243 S.E.2d 584 (1978), overturned on other grounds, Executive Jet Sales v. Jet America, 242 Ga. 307, 248 S.E.2d 676 (1978). 3. The fact that the accident occurred in Tennessee, not Georgia, does not affect this analysis. Unlike the la......
-
Coastal Marshlands v. Ctr. for Sust. Coast
...the Challengers' appeals are properly before this Court as cross-appeals filed pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-38(a). Exec. Jet Sales v. Jet America, 242 Ga. 307, 248 S.E.2d 676 (1978); Centennial Ins. Co. v. Sandner, 259 Ga. 317, 380 S.E.2d 704 2. In Case Nos. A07A0752 and A07A0897, the Committee a......
-
Jack V. Heard Contractors, Inc. v. A. L. Adams Const. Co.
...was reviewable only by certificate of immediate review ..." Thomas v. McGee, 242 Ga. 441(1), 249 S.E.2d 242. Executive Jet Sales v. Jet America, 242 Ga. 307, 248 S.E.2d 676, and Marathon etc., Realties v. Kalb, 244 Ga. 390, 260 S.E.2d 85, are distinguishable from the instant case. Although ......
-
Cancel V. Sewell
...704 (1989) (holding that an appellee may institute a cross-appeal against a party other than an appellant); Executive Jet Sales v. Jet America, 242 Ga. 307, 248 S.E.2d 676 (1978) (holding that where trial court granted one co-defendant's motion to dismiss, but denied the other co-defendant'......