Georgia House Bill HB186

Georgia 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/23
• Report Pass: 2/15/23
• Engrossed: 2/21/23
• Refer: 2/22/23
• Report Pass: 3/13/23
• Enrolled: 3/31/23
• Chaptered: 5/1/23
• Passed: 5/1/23

Caption

Appeal and error; filing of petitions for review in reviewing courts from lower judicatories; revise an exception

Impact

The proposed changes in HB 186 are expected to streamline the appellate process by making the requirements for appealing judgments more straightforward. The revisions to the appeal timelines and processes could affect various stakeholders within the judicial system, primarily litigants and attorneys navigating cases in state courts. Furthermore, the bill seeks to ensure that specific provisions concerning the certification of cases involving certain administrative bodies are clearly outlined, which might enhance procedural uniformity across different courts.

Summary

House Bill 186 is an act designed to amend Title 5 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, which pertains to appeal and error procedures in the judicial system. The key focus of the bill is to revise the timeline and requirements associated with filing petitions for review in superior or state courts. Specifically, it amends the existing language to clarify the deadlines for filing such petitions after a final judgment is rendered by a lower court, thereby aiming for improved clarity and efficiency in the appellate process.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment surrounding HB 186 appears to be supportive, especially among legal professionals who value procedural clarity and efficiency. The bill received unanimous support during voting, suggesting a consensus among legislators on the need for these amendments, indicating that the proposed changes were well-received. This reflects a collective desire to improve the functionality of the judicial system in Georgia, making the appeals process more user-friendly.

Contention

While there was broad consensus on the bill's merits, potential points of contention include concerns from various advocacy groups who may worry about unforeseen consequences of streamlining the appeals process. Critics might argue that while efficiency is valuable, it should not come at the expense of due process rights for individuals seeking to appeal decisions. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the bill's implementation will be crucial to address any challenges that arise post-enactment.