Allen v. Norris, 259 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Allen v. Norris, 259 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Montgomery County Board of Tax Assessors (gactapp, 2004-06-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Montgomery County Board of Tax Assessors
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Swafford v. Bradford, 225 Ga. App. 486, 488 (1) ( 484 SE2d 300 ) (1997); Thompson v. Queen, 198 Ga. App. 627 -628 ( 402 SE2d 361 ) (1991); Allen v. Norris, 151 Ga. App. 305, 306 ( 259 SE2d 701 ) (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swafford v. Bradford (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Allen v. Norris, 151 Ga. App. 305, 306 ( 259 SE2d 701 ) (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Queen
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Held: OCGA § 48-5-296 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Whenever by petition to the judge of the superior court any 100 or more freeholders of the county allege that any member of the county board of tax assessors is disqualified or is not properly and impartially discharging his duties or is discriminating in favor of certain citizens or classes of citizens and against others, . . . the judge shall hear and determine the matter without a jury and shall render such judgment and order as may be right and proper, either dismissing the petition or removing the offending member of the b…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cashin v. Hardman (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Kirton, supra, 135 Ga. App. at 419 (3); see also Allen v. Norris, 151 Ga. App. 305 ( 259 SE2d 701 ) (1979).
ALLEN Et Al.
v.
NORRIS Et Al.
57944.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 12, 1979.
259 S.E.2d 701
William A. Trotter, III, for appellants., A. Rowland Dye, for appellees.
Shulman, Deen, Carley.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
Shulman, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case involving a taxpayer’s petition under Code Ann. § 92-6909, to remove certain members of the Columbia County Board of Tax Assessors (defendants) from office. In the first appeal, the case was remanded with the instruction that the triál court consider whether the alleged failure of defendants to complete revision and assessment of taxpayers’ returns within the time period set forth in Code Ann. § 92-6917 justified their removal from office. See Allen v. Norris, 148 Ga. App. 261 (3) (251 SE2d 145). On remand, the court held that removal would not be "right and proper” and, accordingly, ruled in favor of defendants. We affirm.

In a single enumeration, appellants urge that[*306] uncontradicted evidence of the defendants’ failure to perform their duties in accordance with the deadline imposed by Code Ann. § 92-6917 demanded a judgment ordering the defendants’ removal from office. We cannot agree.

Argued May 29, 1979 Decided September 12, 1979. William A. Trotter, III, for appellants. A. Rowland Dye, for appellees.

The plain wording of § 92-6909 militates against appellants’ contention that the breach of a duty imposed by law, ipso facto, mandates removal from office. Code Ann. § 92-6909 provides that "the judge shall hear and determine the matter without the intervention of a jury and shall render such judgment and order as may be right and proper, either dismissing the petition [of the freeholders] or removing the offending member or members ... from office...” (Emphasis supplied.) Clearly, then, it is within the court’s discretion to remove the members from office upon a showing of cause. Compare Wallace v. State, 160 Ga. 570 (5) (128 SE 759).

Appellees presented evidence establishing the magnitude of their task; their diligent efforts to complete their work on time; and the timely mailing of the tax bills to the public (in spite of the six-day delay in getting the digest to the tax commissioner).

Thus, in view of the evidence presented at trial and in view of the court’s finding that the rights and interests of the public were not adversely affected by virtue of the defendants’ breach of duty, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s judgment that appellees’ breach of Code Ann. § 92-6917 did not warrant their removal from office.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Carley, J., concur.