Aim - 5-6-13

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Josefa Palsgrove

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 4:47:16 PM8/3/24

to woodgrilita

Trial court did not have discretion to grant or refuse a supersedeas in the parent's contempt case and should not have confined the parent to jail for two days as a mandatory halt was required after the parent submitted an application and written notice indicating the parent's intention to seek an appeal of the civil contempt ruling against the parents. Binkley v. Flatt, 256 Ga. App. 263, 568 S.E.2d 95 (2002).

- While grant of supersedeas for contempt committed in presence of court is a matter within sound discretion of trial court before whom contempt is committed, and while person so held is not as a matter of right entitled to a hearing, such judgment of the trial court is nevertheless reviewable by the Court of Appeals. Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga. App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866 (1959).

- Trial court did not err in refusing to grant supersedeas when there was no indication that the complainant submitted a written notice of intent to appeal and when there was no evidence that the complainant complied with O.C.G.A. 5-6-13. Blake v. Spears, 254 Ga. App. 21, 561 S.E.2d 173 (2002).

Trial court did not err in failing to release a father from incarceration while the father's appeal of a contempt order was pending because there was no indication that the father submitted either an application for supersedeas or a written notice of intent to appeal as required by O.C.G.A. 5-6-13(a). Cross v. Ivester, 315 Ga. App. 760, 728 S.E.2d 299 (2012).