Explain the mechanics of the Georgia State Supreme Court

September 27, 2009 6:43 PM

I have a family member who won a case in the Georgia court system. It was a well articulated case that a competitor was engaging in predatory business practices that affected a large group of business owners of a particular type of business. The court agreed, and an appeals court declined to hear the appeal. However, another appeal was made to the Georgia Supreme Court. What are the odds that the GA Supreme Court will hear a case already held up during an appeal?

This family member has a lawyer and that lawyer was capable enough to win the case, so don't tell him to get a lawyer... :)


However, I have two questions.

First, what are the odds that the GA Supreme Court will hear a case that was already held up on appeal?

Second, how important is it to retain local counsel in Atlanta with Supreme Court experience versus the 'home town' lawyer that got him this far?

posted by carlodio to law & government (7 comments total)

IANAL.

The Georgia Supreme Court has discretionary power over all cases, yet they have many more demands on their docket than the Court of Appeals. Basically, there is only one Supreme Court that has to decide whether to hear cases from the entire state whereas a Court of Appeals is only regional.

So there is less of a chance that the Supreme Court will fit the case in their docket than that the Court of Appeals would, for a roundabout answer.

Also, the Court of Appeals has a firm grasp on what the law is, so unless it is basically an unlitigated area of law (rare) or the Supreme Court is just aching to turn over precedent (extremely unlikely) you're probably okay.
posted by andlee210 at 7:13 PM on September 27

A quick google search turned up Case Selection in Three Supreme Courts: A Comparative Perspective (pdf) from the University of Georgia School of Law. It says that the Georgia Constitution limits the review of Georgia Court of Appeals decisions by the Georgia Supreme Court to cases “of gravity or great public importance” and that in 2005 the Georgia Supreme Court had an acceptance rate of 8.16 percent (it granted 43 out of 527 of the petitions for certiorari in 2005).
posted by RichardP at 7:27 PM on September 27 [1 favorite]

First, what are the odds that the GA Supreme Court will hear a case that was already held up on appeal?

The case wasn't held up on appeal. It was declined to be heard on appeal. Those are not the same thing. Still, this is a question the lawyer should be able to answer. If the attorney can't answer it, see the answer to the next question:


Second, how important is it to retain local counsel in Atlanta with Supreme Court experience versus the 'home town' lawyer that got him this far?

Where the attorney lives probably has very little bearing on the outcome of the case. Whether or not the attorney has experience arguing cases before a particular level of court, however, could.

Also, there's no rule that your family member can only seek legal advice from one attorney. There would be nothing stopping that person from hiring an experienced state supreme court litigator to handle (or help with) that aspect of the case.
posted by toomuchpete at 7:39 PM on September 27

I am an attorney who has done some appellate cases. They are complex. You need to ask these questions of a reputable attorney with appellate experience. It is a mistake to seek complex legal advice of this nature for free on the internet, from persons who are likely not attorneys barred in the jurisdiction where the location is litigated. Only an attorney barred in Georgia should give you any advice on this question.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:48 PM on September 27

Sorry, where the "litigation is located"
posted by Ironmouth at 7:49 PM on September 27

IAAL but IANAGL. In my state, in my experience, a case is best presented and argued by the lawyer most familiar with the facts and the developed record.
posted by megatherium at 3:48 AM on September 28

Thanks all for the answers.

The lawyer did answer them and he said that a) he was the best person to hear it if it does get heard b) he has argued cases at that level before and c) the case was important enough that he thinks it is likely it would get heard by the SC

Ironmouth - totally understood. he does have a good lawyer, as far as I can tell, but i guess what i was looking for was if someone made a convincing case that you should never stick with your original lawyer when cases get heard at that level it would give me pause.

toomuchpete - i realized 'declined to be heard' was what i meant to say after i submitted it. thanks...

RichardP - perfect. that's a very helpful stat.
posted by carlodio at 7:30 AM on September 28