Source: https://andyclarklaw.com/appeals-law-guide/review-error/direct-appeal/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:13:20+00:00

Document:
OCGA § 5-6-34(a) lists twelve categories of judgments and rulings from which “[a]ppeals may be taken to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.” Georgia courts describe appeals under this section as “direct appeals,” and if direct appeal is available, an appellant need not satisfy the interlocutory review requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), even if there has been no final judgment in the case. However, if the case falls into one of the categories listed in OCGA § 5-6-35, the appellant must comply with the discretionary review requirements.
OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1) allows appeal from “final judgments.” Appeals from final judgments are discussed under In the Trial Court > Final Judgment. Other categories of direct appeal are discussed below.
OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(2) provides for appeal of “[a]ll judgments involving applications for discharge in bail trover and contempt cases.” In American Medical Security Group, Inc. v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102 (663 SE2d 697) (2008), the Georgia Supreme Court addressed the distinction between a contempt order appealable under this subsection and an interlocutory sanctions order, which could only be appealed under Section 5-6-34(b). The Court noted that “criminal contempt imposes unconditional punishment for prior acts of contumacy, whereas civil contempt imposes conditional punishment as a means of coercing future compliance with a prior court order.” Parker, 663 SE2d at 700. The Court found that the order at issue (dismissing the appellants’ answer and entering a default judgment) was neither criminal contempt (because it did not impose the fine or imprisonment provided for criminal contempt by OCGA § 15-6-8(5)) nor civil contempt (because it was not conditional and did not coerce future compliance). That the trial court entered the order as a sanction for an “act of contempt” did not make the order appealable. Parker, 663 SE2d at 699. The Court cited with approval an Illinois case holding “that a trial court may not make a discovery order containing the sanction of a default judgment as to liability directly appealable by framing the order in contempt language.” Id. at 700 n.15.
OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(3) provides for appeal of “[a]ll judgments or orders directing that an accounting be had.” In Geeslin v. Sheftall, 263 Ga. App. 827, 827 (589 SE2d 601) (2003), the Georgia Court of Appeals noted the distinction “between orders directing that an accounting be had and orders performing that accounting.” An order directing an accounting is appealable under this subsection; an order performing an accounting is not.
Orders dissolving injunctive relief are appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(4). See Morgan v. U.S. Bank N.A., 322 Ga. App. 357 (745 SE2d 290) (2013).
In Todd v. Todd, 703 S.E.2d 597, 599 (2010), the Supreme Court held that because the matter “is not a child custody case, but is a divorce case in which child custody is an issue,” direct appeal under Section 5-6-34(a)(11) was not available.

References: § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 § 15
 § 5
 v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v.