Background
This is a concise Disposition notice based solely on the one-page public order supplied by the Clerk’s Office of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia. The order identifies the case as RONALD E. LEE JR v. KATHERINE LEE, docket number A27D0215, and lists lower-court number 26CVE1860. It is dated Atlanta, October 29, 2026.
The only procedural event described is the court’s consideration of an “Application for Discretionary Appeal.” The supplied document does not identify the underlying claims, the parties’ arguments, the lower court’s ruling, or the factual history of the dispute. It also does not provide an opinion, a panel or “Before” line, or any individual judge’s name. The clerk’s certification states that the document is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals ordered that the Application for Discretionary Appeal be “DENIED.” That is the entire disposition stated in the supplied order. The application was denied; the document does not say that the court granted review, reached the merits of any underlying issue, or issued a reasoned decision.
No public reasoning is available in the supplied document. The order contains no explanation for the denial and no legal analysis. Accordingly, this notice does not attribute a rationale to the court, describe a de novo or substantial-evidence review, or treat the denial as a universal rule about any claim or procedure. The order also states no separate claim-specific holding, damages ruling, patent issue, forfeiture determination, or other procedural ruling beyond denial of the discretionary-appeal application.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia denied the Application for Discretionary Appeal in A27D0215 on October 29, 2026.
- The case caption is RONALD E. LEE JR v. KATHERINE LEE, and the listed lower-court number is 26CVE1860.
- The supplied order gives the outcome only; it provides no reasoning, merits analysis, or identifiable deciding judge.
Why It Matters
The verified development for attorneys is the denial of discretionary review in this docket. The public order establishes that procedural outcome, but it does not explain why the court denied the application or announce a legal principle.
Readers should not infer from this document alone that the court approved or disapproved any particular lower-court reasoning, resolved a substantive issue, or created a generally applicable precedent. Any account of the underlying dispute or the significance of the denial beyond the stated disposition would require additional source material not included in the supplied order.