Supreme Court of Georgia, 1979

Munday v. Munday

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided June 27, 1979 · No. 34921 · Undercofler, Jordan, Hall

257 S.E.2d 282; 243 Ga. 863; 1979 Ga. LEXIS 1451 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

Egeland v. Egeland (Ga. 2005)
Evans v. Davey (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Higdon v. Higdon (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)
Douglas v. Douglas (Ga. 2009)
Ashburn v. Baker (Ga. 1986)
Lanning v. Lanning (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Dallow v. Dallow (Ga. 2016)
Alex Higdon v. Jane Reid Higdon (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)
Edge v. Edge (Ga. 2012)
Baker v. Ashburn (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
Matter of Jss (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
In the Matter of J. S. S. (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
In the Matter of J. S. S. (Ga. Ct. App. 1985)
Columbus v. Gaines (Ga. 1984)
Jones v. Warrenfells (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
Craighead v. Davis (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Carter v. Foster (Ga. 1981)
Lewis v. Lewis (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Fortson v. Fortson (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Munday v. Munday (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Farmer v. Pressley (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

The mother and father were divorced in Fayette County in 1973. On January 10,1979, the father brought a motion for change of visitation relying on Code Ann. §§ 30-127, 50-121, and 74-107. The Georgia Child Custody Intrastate Jurisdiction Act of 1978, Code Ann. Ch. 24-3B; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1957, became effective January 1, 1979, *864 and applies to all custody 1 questions filed thereafter. This Act specifically provides that "[t]he use of a complaint in the nature of habeas corpus seeking a change of child custody is hereby prohibited.” Code Ann. § 24-304b (d).

Submitted May 18, 1979 Decided June 27, 1979. J. Eugene Wilson, for appellant. Read, Huddleston & Medori, Charles D. Read, for appellee.

Since jurisdiction of custody cases in this court was predicated upon our habeas corpus jurisdiction, we no longer have a jurisdictional basis for entertaining such appeals not also involving a judgment for divorce. This case is accordingly transferred to the Court of Appeals.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur, except Jordan and Hall, JJ., who dissent.

" 'Custody’ includes visitation rights.” Code Ann. § 24-303b (c).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.