Court Opinion

ID: 9579568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:56:20.062781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:35.729297
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree completely with the majority’s conclusion that the appeal in this case must be dismissed. However, the majority dismisses on the basis that the appeal is “premature” because the order 'sought to be appealed is an interlocutory one and there has been no compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedure prescribed by OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). I write only to point out that even if the judgment sought to be reviewed in this case were final, we would nevertheless be without jurisdiction over this case as a direct appeal because it is a case involving garnishment and an appeal in such case can only be taken pursuant to an order granting a discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4).