Dog Bite Case Appeal, Interlocutory Application Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Kevin Davis v. Jerry Bunn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26I0188

• Disposition: Interlocutory Application Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Interlocutory Application Dismissed

Combined Opinion

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).