Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

Kevin Davis v. Jerry Bunn

Docket A26I0188

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Type
Opinion
Case type
Civil
Disposition
Dismissed
Docket
A26I0188

Application for interlocutory appeal from a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a dog-bite action

Summary

The Court of Appeals dismissed an application for interlocutory appeal by guardians of a minor bitten by a dog because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was untimely. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the homeowner (Jerry) on March 10, 2026, the court issued the required certificate only on April 2, 2026 — 23 days later. Because Georgia law requires the certificate be issued within ten days of the order and that requirement is jurisdictional, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application. The plaintiffs must wait for a final judgment to pursue appeal rights.

Issues Decided

  • Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal when the trial court issued a certificate of immediate review more than ten days after entry of the summary judgment order.
  • Whether a certificate of immediate review issued after the ten-day statutory window satisfies the jurisdictional requirement for interlocutory appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34(b).

Court's Reasoning

OCGA § 5-6-34(b) requires the trial court to issue a certificate of immediate review within ten days of the order to permit interlocutory appeal, and that timing is jurisdictional. The trial court issued the certificate 23 days after entry of summary judgment, so the statutory timeliness requirement was not met. Because the requirement is jurisdictional, the appellate court could not consider the application and therefore dismissed it.

Authorities Cited

  • OCGA § 5-6-34(b)
  • OCGA § 9-11-56(h)
  • Islamkhan v. Khan299 Ga. 548 (2016)
  • City of Dublin School District v. MMT Holdings, LLC351 Ga. App. 112 (2019)

Parties

Appellant
Kevin Davis et al.
Appellee
Jerry Bunn, et al.
Plaintiff
Kevin Davis
Plaintiff
Krystal Bunn
Defendant
Jerry Bunn
Defendant
Abby Bunn

Key Dates

Summary judgment entered
2026-03-10
Certificate of immediate review issued by trial court
2026-04-02
Court of Appeals order dismissing application
2026-04-27

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Await final judgment

    Do not refile an interlocutory appeal; instead, wait until the trial court enters a final judgment resolving all claims before filing a notice of appeal.

  2. 2

    Consult an attorney about timeline and strategy

    Discuss with counsel whether any post-judgment motions (e.g., reconsideration or motions affecting finality) are appropriate and prepare to preserve appellate issues for a later appeal.

  3. 3

    Preserve the record

    Ensure the trial-court record is complete and that any relevant motions or certificates are included so appellate issues are preserved when a final appeal is filed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal application because the trial court’s certificate of immediate review was issued too late, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Who is affected by this decision?
The plaintiffs (the child’s guardians) who sought immediate appellate review are affected because they cannot proceed now on an interlocutory basis; the underlying summary judgment in favor of Jerry stands for now.
What happens next in the case?
The plaintiffs must wait for a final judgment in the trial court and may then appeal from that final judgment if they wish to pursue review.
Why was the application dismissed even though summary judgment was entered?
Although a party against whom summary judgment is granted can usually appeal directly, the trial court must timely certify immediate review within ten days; that deadline is jurisdictional and was missed here.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

                                         ATLANTA,____________________
                                                  April 27, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26I0188. KEVIN DAVIS et al. v. JERRY BUNN, et al.

      While attending a party at the home of Jerry Bunn, Bryce Davis, a minor, was
bitten by a dog owned by Jerry’s daughter, Abby Bunn. Acting in their capacity as the
child’s legal guardians, Kevin Davis and Krystal Bunn (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),
brought the underlying action against both Jerry and Abby seeking to recover for the
child’s injuries. Jerry moved for summary judgment as to the claim asserted against
him, arguing that because he was not the owner of the dog, he was not liable for the
animal’s conduct. The trial court agreed and on March 10, 2026, it entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of Jerry. Plaintiffs sought a certificate of
immediate review, which the trial court granted on April 2, 2026. Plaintiffs then filed
this application for interlocutory appeal. We lack jurisdiction.
      A party against whom summary judgment is granted generally has a right of
direct appeal, even where the judgment leaves some claims pending in the trial court.
Specifically, OCGA § 9-11-56(h) gives “the party against whom summary judgment
has been entered the right to a direct appeal from an order granting summary
judgment on any issue or as to any party even though the judgment is not final.” City
of Dublin School District v. MMT Holdings, LLC, 351 Ga. App. 112, 115-16(2) (830
SE2d 487) (2019) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Overstreet v. Doctors
Hosp., 142 Ga. App. 895, 896(1) (237 SE2d 213) (1977) (“the grant of a summary
judgment is an exception to the rule requiring a final judgment in order to appeal”)
(citation and punctuation omitted). This Court will grant a timely application for
interlocutory appeal if the order at issue is directly appealable and the applicant has
not already filed a timely notice of appeal. See Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485,
486 n.1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). Plaintiffs’ application, however, is not timely.
      A party may seek interlocutory review only if the trial court certifies within ten
days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review should be had. OCGA §
5-6-34(b). And because a timely certificate of immediate review is a jurisdictional
requirement, we may not consider any application for an interlocutory appeal where
the timeliness requirement is not met. Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551(2) (787
SE2d 731) (2016).1 Here, the trial court did not issue the certificate of immediate
review until 23 days after entry of the summary judgment order. Consequently, we
lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.



                                        Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
                                          Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
                                                                      04/27/2026
                                                   I certify that the above is a true extract from
                                        the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
                                                  Witness my signature and the seal of said court
                                        hereto affixed the day and year last above written.


                                                                                          , Clerk.




      1
        Under such circumstances, the party seeking review must wait until final
judgment to appeal. See Duke v. State, 306 Ga. 171, 178(3)(a) (829 SE2d 348) (2019);
 Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551(2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016).