Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

193 Ga. App. 9

Fasse v. Sexton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 25, 1989

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1989-09-25

Relies on Swift v. Household Finance Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-09-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2016

15 state decisions

701989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Carley, Chief Judge.

¶1Appellee-defendant answered appellant-plaintiff’s complaint and asserted a counterclaim. Acting pursuant to OCGA §§ 9-11-37 (b) (2) (C) and 9-11-37 (d) (1), the trial court subsequently dismissed appellant’s complaint as a sanction for her repeated failure to attend scheduled depositions. Appellant has filed a direct appeal from the order dismissing her complaint.

¶2Appellees’ counterclaim remains pending. “ ‘An appeal from an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim is premature when there is a counterclaim pending in the court below.’ [Cits.] . . . [T]he pendency of the counterclaim plus the absence of a determination by the trial judge that there was no just reason for delay and express direction for entry of judgment under CPA § 54 (b) [OCGA § 9-11-54 (b)] ([cits.]) prevented the order from being final and [directly] appealable. This, coupled with the appellant’s failure to follow the applicable procedure for review under [OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)] ([Cits.]), subjects the instant appeal to dismissal [as premature].” Cleveland v. Watkins, 159 Ga. App. 885 (285 SE2d 546) (1981).

¶3Appeal dismissed.

McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.
/193/gaapp/9 · .json · Public domain