IN RE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
| Decision Date | 13 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S98O0949.,S98O0949. |
| Parties | In re Motion of ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
F.T. Davis, Jr., Lawrence Albert Slovensky, Long, Aldridge & Norman, LLP, Atlanta, for Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
C. Wilbur Warner, Jr., John C. Mayoue, Warner, Mayoue & Bates, A. Stephens Clay, Susan A. Cahoon, James R. Kanner, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, William J. Linkous, Jr., Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, for the State.
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (AJC) filed an original motion in this Court, asserting the presence of jurisdiction here pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 21.5, which provides that an order limiting access to court records may be amended by this Court "at any time on its own motion or upon the motion of any person for good cause." The order attacked by AJC seals the record of a suit seeking to establish paternity of the plaintiff.
Since it is incumbent on this court to examine its own jurisdiction (Collins v. AT & T, 265 Ga. 37, 456 S.E.2d 50 (1995)), we address first the question of the route by which a matter such as this must come to this court. The sealing of court records is controlled by Uniform Superior Court Rule 21. Review of orders limiting access to court records is provided for in Rule 21.4: "An order limiting access may be reviewed by interlocutory application to the Supreme Court." It is apparent from the phrasing of the rule that there is no right under the rule to file an original action in this Court. Instead, one seeking review of a trial court's order restricting access to court records must file an application with this Court. It is important to note, however, that the rule does not make reference to OCGA § 5-6-34, which leads to the conclusion that "interlocutory," as used in this rule, is used in its generic sense of "interim," or, "not final," (Black's Law Dictionary, 5 th ed.), and thus does not import the full procedural structure of interlocutory appeals under that section. That being so, there is no need for a certificate of immediate review, and the time limits imposed by the Code section do not apply. The application must, however, contain a copy of the order sought to be reviewed, must set forth the need for review by this court, and must contain a certificate showing that the petition has been served on the parties to the civil matter in the trial court. The parties shall have ten days in which to file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Interest of J. H.
...a final resolution of the whole controversy." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). See In re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution , 269 Ga. 589, 589, 502 S.E.2d 720 (1998) (per curiam) (citing Black's Law Dictionary and defining "interlocutory" as "interim" or "not final"). And Georgia......
-
Merch. Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, S17A0039
...review, that person need not follow the interlocutory procedures provided by OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution , 269 Ga. 589, 589, 502 S.E.2d 720 (1998).3 Although Rule 21.5 states that an "an order limiting access may be reviewed and amended by the court entering su......
-
Merch. Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson
...review, that person need not follow the interlocutory procedures provided by OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See In re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 269 Ga. 589, 589, 502 S.E.2d 720 (1998).3 Although Rule 21.5 states that "an order limiting access may be reviewed and amended by the court enter......
-
Simmons v. Williams
...County Fed. S & L Assn.8 (Uniform Superior Court Rules control in the absence of conflicting substantive law). See also In re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution.9 Here, the burden of proof was on the father and the grandmother to establish that the child would be harmed if returned to t......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...the supreme court asserted that "[c]ivic associations do not have standing to file suit to challenge zoning decisions." Id. at 619, 502 S.E.2d at 720. Accordingly, plaintiff association, displeased with the county governing authority's tie vote on the association's appeal from the grant of ......