Georgia Caselaw:BrowseGreatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) seek Georgia regulation Resources


Copher and also Mackey were connected in a wreck in 1993, together a an outcome of which Mackey sue Copher. During the litigation, Mackey served three separate sets that interrogatories, no collection of i m sorry totaled end 50, consisting of subparts. The 3 sets together, however, totaled 81. Copher answer the first two set which with each other totaled much less than 50, however sought a safety order regarding the 3rd set, which to be denied.

You are watching: Ocga 9-11-33

The Civil practice Act was initially enacted in 1966. Ga. L. 1966, p. 609 et seq. As declared in the very first section of that act, "his chapter shall be taken to certain the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." OCGA 9-11-1. Ar 33 that the 1966 action stated:. Through regard come interrogatories, "he variety of interrogatories or of to adjust of interrogatories to be served is not restricted except together justice needs to safeguard the party native annoyance, expense, embarrassment, or oppression." Ga. L. 1966, p. 646.
The 1972 revision of the Civil exercise Act, Ga. L. 1972, p. 510 et seq., rewrote section 33 and, when there was no reference made come the variety of interrogatories or sets, as recognized in Carter v. Tatum, 134 Ga. App. 345, 346 (1) (212 SE2d 439) (1975), "

rior come the 1972 modification the scope and also usage of together interrogatories was lot broader. "
2. In interpreting statutes, "the court shall look at diligently for the intention of the basic Assembly, maintaining in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy." OCGA 1-3-1 (a). " "To ascertain the intentionally of the legislature, after analyzing the indigenous of the plot itself, it is important to take into view every fact and also circumstance that affected its passage. Us must take into consideration what the legislation was before; the mischiefs against which the legislation did no provide; the nature of the remedy proposed; the true factor of the remedy." " McGuire v. McGuire, 228 Ga. 782, 785 (187 SE2d 859) (1972); City the Roswell v. City that Atlanta, 261 Ga. 657 (1) (410 SE2d 28) (1991).
3. " "(I)t is well worked out in this jurisdiction the all statutes space presumed to be enacted by the legislature with complete knowledge that the existing problem of the law and with referral to it; that they space to be taken in connection and in harmony with the present law; and that their meaning and impact will be figured out in connection, not only with the typical law and also the Constitution, but also with reference to various other statutes and also the decision of the courts." " Wigley v. Hambrick, 193 Ga. App. 903, 905 (4) (389 SE2d 763) (1989).
4. The Georgia structure prohibits the passage of a bill which ad to more than one subject matter or consists of matter various from the expressed in the location of the bill. Ga. Const., Art. III, Sec. V, Par. III; Lutz v. Foran, 262 Ga. 819, 820 (3) (427 SE2d 248) (1993).
In construing legislation, "othing . . . Is much more pertinent, towards ascertaining the true on purpose of the legislative mind in the i of the enactment, than the legislature"s very own interpretation that the scope and purpose that the act, as included in the caption. The caption of an plot of the legislative branch is appropriately an table of contents to the materials of the state as understood by the legislative branch itself, -- a summarizing of the act, made right at the time as soon as the discussion of every phase of the question is fresh in the legislative mind." Wimberly v. Ga. Southerly &c. R. Co., 5 Ga. App. 263, 265 (2) (63 SE 29) (1908); can be fried Camp Woodmen of the human being v. Beard, 26 Ga. App. 130, 131 (105 SE 629) (1921).
Such a conclusion is supported by the reality that, during the legislature"s consideration of Senate invoice 60, which came to be the 1980 amendment, the Senate unique Judiciary Committee amended the invoice to advanced the proposed border on interrogatories native 25 to 50. 1980 newspaper of the Senate, Vol. I, p. 1098.
Therefore, the court"s stimulate denying the motion for protective order is reversed and remanded come the attempt court for consideration in light of this opinion.
6. The remaining enumeration is that the court erred in its bespeak directing Copher to produce a copy the his statement offered to his insurer USAA.
The trial court, in ruling on Mackey"s movement to compel discovery, which sought manufacturing of the Copher recording, held only that "the Defendant"s recorded statement is not privileged."
The statement of a party or other witness to an accident, if taken by one insurer in anticipation that a insurance claim being filed versus its insured, is taken into consideration "work product" under the statute, even if taken prior to litigation is filed. Dept. That Transp. V. Hardaway Co., 216 Ga. App. 262, 263 (2) (454 SE2d 167) (1995); Howell v. United says Fire Ins. Co., 185 Ga. App. 154, 158 (4) (363 SE2d 560) (1987); Warmack v. Mini-Skools, Ltd., 164 Ga. App. 737, 738 (2) (297 SE2d 365) (1982); see Ford motor Co. V. Hanley, 128 Ga. App. 311, 313 (1) (196 SE2d 454) (1973).
1 We do not deal with the problem of even if it is submitting the concern of physical damage to automobiles to a neutral arbitrator, as compelled by an agreement in between USAA and also Geico, Mackey"s insurer, including Copher"s statement, was a "waiver" of the occupational product rule, due to the fact that the psychological court walk not deal with this issue.

See more: Treason Is The Reason For The Season Men/Unisex T, Treason Is The Reason For The Season T

Citing Cases:
BENNETT v. THE STATE.; VOTTA v. THE STATE. (252 Ga. App. 451) (557 SE2d 29) (2001)
CROSBY et al. V. COOPER tires & RUBBER COMPANY; and vice versa. (240 Ga. App. 857) (524 SE2d 313) (1999)
MOUNTAINSIDE medical CENTER/PICKENS medical care et al. V. TANNER. (225 Ga. App. 722) (484 SE2d 706) (1997)