Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 21-4-14 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 21-4-14 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 21-4-14

TITLE 21 ELECTIONS

Section 4. Recall of Public Officers, 21-4-1 through 21-4-21.

ARTICLE 15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

21-4-14. Recall election - Filing subsequent recall petition against officer following recall election or denial of recall petition.

  1. After a recall petition and election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer until at least six months have elapsed from the date of the previous recall election; and any other recall petitions against that officer outstanding on the date of the recall election shall be void.
  2. If the election superintendent finds that a recall petition is insufficient and fails to verify the same, no further application for a recall petition shall be filed against the same officer until at least six months have elapsed from the date of the denial of such recall petition; provided, however, that such finding of insufficiency shall not bar the verification of any other recall petition against that officer which is available for signature or pending verification at the time of such finding of insufficiency.

(Code 1981, §21-4-14, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1721, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Determination of the legal insufficiency of the original application for a recall petition was not a bar to filing a second application within six months of the first application. Collins v. Morris, 263 Ga. 734, 438 S.E.2d 896 (1993).

A judicial determination that a recall petition was issued in violation of the Recall Act, O.C.G.A. § 21-4-1 et seq., is not a bar to a subsequent petition. George v. Baker, 265 Ga. 858, 463 S.E.2d 124 (1995).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the provisions, opinions decided prior to the 1989 revision of this chapter and under former Code 1933, § 89-1914 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Initiation of second recall effort.

- Former Code 1933, §§ 89-1905 and 89-1914 (see O.C.G.A. §§ 21-4-5 and21-4-14) represent only constraints upon initiation of second recall effort notwithstanding previous but unsuccessful recall efforts made against the same public officer. 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U81-11 (decided under former Code 1933, § 89-1914).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 21-4-14

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Collins v. Morris, 438 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1994).

Cited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 24, 1994 | 263 Ga. 734, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 319

...imately to decide if the officer will or will not be recalled is not unconstitutional. "We conclude, in sum, that the [recall] statute affords adequate due process protection to the public official...." Eaves v. Harris, supra at 4-5 (2) (b). 2. OCGA § 21-4-14 (a) provides limitations as to the filing of additional petitions for recall after a recall election has been held. OCGA § 21-4-14 (b) prohibits the filing of another application within six months after a recall petition has been found to be insufficient....
...Res judicata does not attach to a judicial ruling which "points out a defect in form rather than a defect in substance. [Cit.]" Westbrook v. Griffin, 27 Ga. App. 290 (1) (108 SE 123) (1921). Under the statutory recall scheme enacted by the legislature, it is only the provisions of OCGA § 21-4-14, not the doctrine of res judicata, which operate as a constraint upon the initiation of a subsequent recall effort....
Copy

George v. Baker, 265 Ga. 858 (Ga. 1995).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 13, 1995 | 463 S.E.2d 124

...filed new applications to initiate another recall drive against the same council members. On April 10, 1995, Baker issued the recall applications at issue here. 1. The council members contend that this recall effort should be enjoined because OCGA § 21-4-14 (b) prevents the issuance of any further application for recall against the same officer until at least six months have elapsed from the date of the finding of insufficiency of the prior petition. This argument ignores the plain language of § 21-4-14 (b)....
...Thus, a judicial determination that the recall petition was issued in violation of the Recall Act is not a bar to a subsequent petition.3 In this case, because a trial court and not the elections superintendent held that the initial recall petition was invalid, § 21-4-14 (b) is inapplicable....
...the first recall petitions was based upon findings of improper conduct that are beyond the scope of the statutory review the elections superintendent may take.5 For these reasons, the second petition was not subject to the time proscription in OCGA § 21-4-14 (b) and the trial court correctly de*860nied the injunction. Decided November 13, 1995. Jones, Byington, Durham & Payne, Frank H....