The Court of Appeals of Georgia has revised its rules, effective March 26, 2026. The following is a summary of the amended rules, which will be applied to all cases decided by the Court of Appeals on or after the effective date.
Clerk’s Office Hours and Location: Rule 1
Rule 1 has been amended to reflect the updated website domain for the Court of Appeals: www.gaappeals.gov.
Filings by Pro Se Prisoners: Rule 4 (c) (2)
Under the newly added Rule 4 (c) (2), discretionary and interlocutory applications filed by a pro se prisoner shall receive a docket date that corresponds with the date that the application is physically received in the Clerk’s Office. This rule was effectuated to account for potential delays in the processing and/or delivery of pro se prisoner mail that may occur following the submission of the mail to prison officials.
Limitations: Rule 24 (a)
The revised rule clarifies the categories of briefs which require permission from the Court in order to be accepted, namely amended briefs, supplemental briefs, corrected briefs, and responses to amicus briefs.
General Provisions: Rule 25 (d)
Rule 25 (d) no longer references the citation format required for paper records because the Court now processes records electronically.
Additionally, the revised rule has been expanded to clarify the requirements for seeking access to the record when a case has previously been up on appeal in this Court.
Guidelines: Rule 27 (a)
The revised rule has introduced mandatory requirements for those seeking permission to file a supplemental, amended, or corrected brief. For parties filing a motion under Rule 27 (a), the rule now requires the motion to explain why the supplement, amendment, or correction is necessary, identify the changes being made, and include a copy of the proposed brief as an exhibit.
Original Petitions: Rule 40 (c)
Rule 40 (c) continues the provision for this Court to issue process in the nature of mandamus. The revised rule provides for an original petition requesting mandamus, rather than a motion as prescribed under the former rule.
Rule 40 (c) (1) has been expanded to explain more specifically that this Court has original mandamus jurisdiction in order to effectuate its judgments, generally where this Court has issued a judgment and opinion that the trial court later refuses to follow in the same case.
Accordingly, a newly added subsection, Rule 40 (c) (2), directs that the petition seeking mandamus must contain the prior judgment of this Court, where applicable, that would be effectuated by an exercise of original mandamus jurisdiction.
Rule 40 (c) (4), which addresses the requirements for proof of service, clarifies that the officer’s compelled performance is required (the prior rule stated that such performance is ‘requested’).
The revised rule also advises that a party’s failure to submit sufficient material to apprise the Court of the issues and support the argument may result in the dismissal or denial of the mandamus petition.