Georgia § 9-10-93 - Venue.

§ 9-10-93. Venue.

Venue in cases under this article shall lie in any county wherein a substantial part of the business was transacted, the tortious act, omission, or injury occurred, or the real property is located. Where an action is brought against a resident of this state, any nonresident of this state who is involved in the same transaction or occurrence and who is suable under the provisions of this article may be joined as a defendant in the county where a resident defendant is suable. Under such circumstances, jurisdiction and venue of the court of and over such nonresident defendant shall not be affected or lost if at trial a verdict or judgment is returned in favor of such resident defendant. If such resident defendant is dismissed from the action prior to commencement of the trial, the action against the nonresident defendant shall not abate but shall be transferred to a court in a county where venue is proper. (Ga. L. 1966, p. 343, § 4; Ga. L. 1968, p. 1419, § 1; Ga. L. 1970, p. 443, § 3; Ga. L. 1997, p. 480, § 1.) Cross references. - Venue of actions against noncitizens found in state, § 9-10-33 . Law reviews. - For article, "The Georgia Long Arm Statute: A Significant Advance in the Concept of Personal Jurisdiction," see 4 Ga. St. B. J. 13 (1967). For article, "An Introduction to the New Georgia Corporation Law," see 4 Ga. St. B. J. 419 (1968). For article, "Foreign Corporations in Georgia," see 10 Ga. St. B. J. 243 (1973). For article discussing venue and jurisdictional requirements for third party practice, see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 13 (1978). For article discussing Georgia's long arm statute, prejudgment attachment and habeas corpus, with respect to judicial developments in practice and procedure in the fifth circuit, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 925 (1979). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 383 (1986). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 9 (1997). For note discussing the 1970 amendments to the long arm statute as an enlargement of in personam jurisdiction, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 451 (1971). 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). For note discussing some complications of filing suit against a nonresident in a multiparty action or against a resident who might implead a nonresident under the venue rules, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 149 (1976). For comment on World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S. Ct. 559 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 490 (1980), and Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 100 S. Ct. 591 , 62 L. Ed. 2 d 516 (1980), regarding minimum contacts and state jurisdiction, see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 19 (1980). For comment, "Jurisdiction over Nonresidents in Georgia: Crowder v. Ginn," see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 201 (1982).