Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CHAVEZ et al. v. HANKS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County.
Appellants Eduardo Chavez and Alma Rivera filed a complaint for injuries allegedly caused by a Cook County deputy's negligent operation of a sheriff's department vehicle. Initially, the complaint was filed against the Cook County Sheriff's Office, the Cook County Board of Commissioners, and the deputy who allegedly caused the accident; however, the parties eventually agreed that these named defendants should be dismissed and replaced by Douglas Hanks, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County (hereinafter “Appellee”). Thereafter, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the action was barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to OCGA § 36-92-1 et seq. Appellants opposed the motion. The trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss, concluding that the plain language of OCGA §§ 36-92-1 and 36-92-3 did not extend the waiver of sovereign immunity to a sheriff or deputy sheriff. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
Appellants filed the instant appeal, and, while this case was pending, this Court issued a decision in Paulk v. Wilson, 376 Ga. App. 46, 918 S.E.2d 95 (2025), which appears to be controlling. Because the circumstances of this case appear to fall within the scope of that decision, we vacate and remand the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of that decision. See Grimes v. State, 303 Ga. App. 808, 812-813 (1) (b), 695 S.E.2d 294 (2010).1
Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.
FOOTNOTES
1. At the same time, Appellants filed a motion, which they later amended, for leave to add party defendants. In the motion, as amended, they made alternative arguments requesting that they either be allowed to add the original party defendants back to the action, or that they be allowed to substitute the proper party defendant under OCGA § 36-92-3 (b). The trial court denied this motion as well. Because Appellants’ motion was made in the alternative, we vacate the trial court's order denying the same and, likewise, remand for further consideration of that motion as well.
Pipkin, Judge.
McFadden, P. J., and Hodges, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: A25A1233
Decided: October 10, 2025
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)