O.C.G.A. § 15-7-22 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS County not entitled to reimbursement of salary supplement that was not paid in violation of law. - In a dispute between a county and a county state court judge over a supplement to the judge’s salary, summary judgment for the judge was proper on the county’s claim for reimbursement of the judge’s salary supplement because the county failed to show that the supplement was paid with the total absence or want of power. Even if the supplement was paid in violation of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., the county’s counterclaim was filed well outside the 90-day limitation period in § 50-14-1(b)(2). Heiskell v. Roberts, 342 Ga. App. 109, 802 S.E.2d 385 (2017). State court judge not entitled to additional compensation under local

law. - Trial court erred in finding that all of a a state court judge’s claims to recover compensation under state law, O.C.G.A. § 15-7-22, a local law, 2006 Ga. Laws 206, and a county ordinance, were barred by laches; the judge’s claims were subject to the two-year limitations period in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-22, meaning the judge could pursue claims on or after October 6, 2015; however, the judge was not entitled to mandamus because the judge had received all the compensation to which the judge was entitled. Cowen v. Clayton County, 306 Ga. 698, 832 S.E.2d 819 (2019). Cited in Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc. v. West, 200 Ga. App. 402, 408 S.E.2d 180 (1991); Cramer v. Spalding County, 261 Ga. 570, 409 S.E.2d 30 (1991).