GA Code § 9-10-50 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 9 - Civil Practice|Chapter 10 - Civil Practice and Procedure Generally|Article 2 - Venue|Part 2 - Change of Venue|§ 9-10-50. When Venue May Be Changed; How County for Transfer to Be Selected; Subsequent Change of Venue

  Whenever, by an examination voir dire of the persons whose names are on the jury list and who are compellable to serve on the jury, the presiding judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where any civil case is pending, the civil case may be transferred to any county that may be agreed upon by the parties or their counsel.   In the event the parties or their counsel fail or refuse to agree upon any county in which to try the case pending, the judge may select the county in which the same shall be tried and have the case transferred accordingly.   When any civil case has been once transferred, the judge may again change the venue from the county to which the transfer was first made to any other county, in the same manner as the venue was first changed from the county in which the civil case was originally commenced.    (Ga. L. 1884-85, p. 35, § 1; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4955, 4956; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5532, 5533; Code 1933, §§ 3-207, 3-208.)   Law reviews.   - For article surveying developments in Georgia trial practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1981). For note discussing problems with venue in Georgia, and proposing statutory revisions to improve the resolution of venue questions, see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 254 (1972).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Legislative intent.    - The language of this section manifests the legislative intent that a trial judge may transfer a civil case only when the trial judge is satisfied that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where pending and that this determination shall be made by an examination voir dire of the persons whose names are on the jury list. Claxton Poultry Co. v. City of Claxton, 155 Ga. App. 308, 271 S.E.2d 227 (1980) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-50).   Motion for change of venue properly denied absent sufficient proof of allegations.    - The court has wide discretion as to the granting of a change of venue, and where there are no facts submitted to prove the allegations of the motion for change of venue, the motion is properly denied. Veal v. Paulk, 121 Ga. App. 575, 174 S.E.2d 465 (1970).   Pertinent inquiry regarding request for change of venue due to pre-trial publicity.    - Where a defendant has requested a change of venue due to pre-trial publicity, the pertinent inquiry is the percentage of potential jurors who were so influenced by pre-trial publicity that they were excused for prejudice. Lumpkin v. State, 255 Ga. 363, 338 S.E.2d 431 (1986), overruled on other grounds, Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317, 496 S.E.2d 896, (1998).    Decision to order change in venue in civil case is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Thompson v. Sawnee Elec. Membership Corp., 157 Ga. App. 561, 278 S.E.2d 143 (1981).   Discretion of trial court not to be disturbed absent abuse of discretion.    - The matter of whether a change of venue is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this discretion will not be disturbed unless an abuse of this discretion is shown. Claxton Poultry Co. v. City of Claxton, 155 Ga. App. 308, 271 S.E.2d 227 (1980).    Only purpose of voir dire questions is to ascertain whether or not a juror is impartial, and does not bear upon other qualifications of a juror, such as relationship. Alley v. Gormley, 181 Ga. 650, 183 S.E. 787 (1935).   Matters to be considered by judge in deciding question of change of venue.    - In determining question of change of venue, the trial judge may examine by voir dire those persons named on the jury list, although such an undertaking is not required; the judge is also authorized to consider other evidence, such as the testimony of public witnesses, in order to throw light on the condition of the public mind. Claxton Poultry Co. v. City of Claxton, 155 Ga. App. 308, 271 S.E.2d 227 (1980).   Judge had jurisdiction to vacate change of venue orders.    - Judge did not lack jurisdiction to vacate the change of venue orders as nothing in the orders indicated that jurisdiction was being transferred or that the case would not be heard by that judge; it was apparent that the judge intended for the county to retain power over the case while changing the place where the trial would be conducted. Head v. Brown, 259 Ga. App. 855, 578 S.E.2d 555 (2003).    Influence, which citizens of county who are parties to action possess, is no reason for a change of venue and is insufficient to show that an impartial jury cannot be obtained. Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Westlake Club, Inc., 112 Ga. App. 412, 145 S.E.2d 669 (1965).   Difficulty finding jurors unrelated to party.    - The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a change of venue where, after personally examining 80 or 90 venire persons as to any relationship with an insurance company, the court qualified only 12 jurors for the panel. Holt v. Scott, 226 Ga. App. 812, 487 S.E.2d 657 (1997).   Proper test to ascertain whether pretrial publicity has sufficiently prejudiced a case.    - The test as to whether pretrial publicity has so prejudiced a case that an accused cannot receive a fair trial is whether the jurors summoned to try the case have formed fixed opinions as to guilt or innocence of the accused from reading such publicity. Dampier v. State, 245 Ga. 427, 265 S.E.2d 565, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 938, 101 S. Ct. 337, 66 L. Ed. 2d 161 (1980).    In order to establish that they did not receive a fair trial, plaintiffs must show: (1) that the setting of the trial was inherently prejudicial; or (2) that the jury selection process showed actual prejudice to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible. Claxton Poultry Co. v. City of Claxton, 155 Ga. App. 308, 271 S.E.2d 227 (1980).   Unnecessary to put forth voir dire questions where juror disqualified by relationship to party.    - Although O.C.G.A. § 9-10-50 calls for the court to exercise its discretion with regard to a request for change of venue, upon examination by voir dire of the persons whose names are on the jury list and who are compellable to serve on the jury, if a juror were disqualified by reason of relationship or for other cause, it would be unnecessary to proceed further by putting to the juror the voir dire questions. Thompson v. Sawnee Elec. Membership Corp., 157 Ga. App. 561, 278 S.E.2d 143 (1981).   Change of venue not warranted.    - There was no abuse of discretion in the finding that a fair trial could be had in the county; the latter judge found that, contrary to the earlier ruling, a change of venue was not warranted as the judge was satisfied that an impartial jury could be found in the county. Head v. Brown, 259 Ga. App. 855, 578 S.E.2d 555 (2003).    Cited in Robertson v. State, 161 Ga. App. 715, 288 S.E.2d 362 (1982); EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 77 Am. Jur. 2d, Venue, §§ 59, 83, 88, 89.   C.J.S.   - 92A C.J.S., Venue, §§ 184 et seq., 212, 229, 230, 299.   ALR.    - What is "civil action" or "civil proceeding" within statute relating to disqualification of judge or change of venue, 102 A.L.R. 397.    Right of defendant, upon motion made or renewed after plaintiff has closed his case without proving liability on part of codefendant, to change of venue to the county or district which would have been the proper venue but for the joinder of the codefendant, 140 A.L.R. 1287.    Right of defendant in civil action to change of venue upon motion made after time specified by statute or rule in that regard, as affected by fact that codefendant had made such a motion within the prescribed period, 141 A.L.R. 1177.    Statute providing for change of judge or venue on ground of bias or prejudice as applicable to proceeding for modification of decree of divorce, 143 A.L.R. 411.   Venue of action for the cutting, destruction, or damage of standing timber or trees, 65 A.L.R.2d 1268.   Binding effect of order on motion for change of venue, where action is terminated otherwise than on merits and reinstituted, 85 A.L.R.2d 993.   Venue of civil libel action against newspaper or periodical, 15 A.L.R.3d 1249.   Right of accused in misdemeanor prosecution to change of venue on grounds of inability to secure fair trial and the like, 34 A.L.R.3d 804.   Change of venue as justified by fact that large number of inhabitants of local jurisdiction have interest adverse to party to state civil action, 10 A.L.R.4th 1046.   Questions as to Convenience and Justice of Transfer Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) - Federal Appellate Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases, 37 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 6.   Doctrine of "Intergovernmental Tax Immunity” as Codified in 4 U.S.C.A. § 411, 37 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 10.   Effect of Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) upon Compensation of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustees Under 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 326, 330, 37 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 13.