CopyCited 34 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 8, 1990 | 260 Ga. 245
...itical solicitation in the mall. Appellants base their claim of right to petition in and right to recall elected officials, and on the Recall Act of 1989. See Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. IX; Art. II, Sec. II, Par. IV; and OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq....
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 24, 1994 | 263 Ga. 734, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 319
...e legally sufficient. In Case No. S93A1311, appellants appeal from that ruling. Subsequent to the ruling appealed in Case No. S93A1311, appellants brought a separate declaratory judgment action attacking the constitutionality of the Recall Act, OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq....
...Once the recall application has been judicially determined to be legally sufficient as to both the stated ground and the alleged factual support, the recall petition can then circulate and, if a sufficient number of qualified voters sign the petition, a recall election will be held in accordance with OCGA §
21-4-13....
...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....
...filed with the election superintendent (OCGA §
21-4-5 (b) (3)); that a recall petition has been officially issued for circulation (OCGA §
21-4-5 (i)); and that the legal sufficiency or insufficiency of the recall petition has been certified (OCGA §
21-4-11 (e))....
...which the recall is based must be read by or to each singer of the recall petition. OCGA §
21-4-7 (c). Should the proceedings reach the point that a recall election is conducted, the ground or grounds for recall must be printed on the ballot. OCGA §
21-4-13 (e)....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 1, 1991 | 261 Ga. 644, 19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1605
...Jack G. Slover, Jr., Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, P.C., Atlanta, for Honea et al. James F. Grubiak, Atlanta, for amicus appellee. Oliver R. Hunter, Assoc. County Com'rs of Georgia, Atlanta. WELTNER, Justice. Petitions under the Recall Act of 1989 (OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq.) were filed against two county commissioners on the grounds that they had "committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office," and had "committed an act of misconduct in office." [1] Specifically, the petitions alleged: [The c...
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 26, 1998 | 269 Ga. 75, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 329
...legations in the recall applications are made under oath, and the applications are subject to substantive judicial review, the persons who prepare and sign the applications are entitled to absolute immunity under OCGA §
51-5-8. NOTES [1] See OCGA §§
21-4-1 to
21-4-21....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 14, 1995 | 265 Ga. 573
...After Superintendent certified the legal sufficiency of the Voters' recall petitions, Councilmen filed suit in the Superior Court of Floyd County. Alleging that the Voters and Superintendent had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Recall Act, OCGA §§
21-4-1 et seq., Councilmen sought an interlocutory and permanent injunction against the scheduling of a recall election and, in addition, attorney's fees....
...Voters and Superintendent urge that, insofar as Councilmen had an adequate legal remedy under the Recall Act itself, it was error for the trial court to entertain Councilmen's suit for equitable relief. According to them, Councilmen's legal remedy was an action for mandamus as authorized by OCGA §
21-4-18(a)....
...Voters purport to have completed their recall effort against Councilmen and the Superintendent has certified the legal sufficiency of Voters' recall petitions. Under these circumstances, the only future act that could be enjoined would be the Superintendent's act of scheduling a recall election in accordance with OCGA §
21-4-13....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 8, 1993 | 262 Ga. 658, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 159
...Dodd & Turner, L. Warren Turner, Jr., for appellees. SEARS-COLLINS, Justice. The appellants sponsored applications for petitions for the recall of five Lowndes County School Board members (the appellees), under the Recall Act of 1989, as amended in 1991 (OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq.) (the "Recall Act")....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 6, 1988 | 258 Ga. 608
...The amendment also states, "The procedures, grounds, and all other matters relevant to such recall shall be provided for in such law." Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. II, Par. IV. Acting pursuant to this authority, the General Assembly enacted a recall statute in 1979. OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 28, 1992 | 262 Ga. 279, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 758
...Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Byrd, Charles W. Byrd, Key & Kirby, *282 L. Jack Kirby, for appellant. Walbert & Hermann, David F. Walbert, Jerry W. Loftin, for appellee. WELTNER, Presiding Justice. A petition under the Recall Act of 1989 as amended (OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq.) was filed against a county school board member....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 11, 2000 | 272 Ga. 730, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3537
...a recall application and for the first time imposed the burden on a petition chairperson to prove that probable cause exists to believe that the alleged facts are true. Ga. L.1998, p. 1107, § 1. Although not defined in the Recall Act of 1989, OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq., the meaning of the term "probable cause" is well-established in both existing statutory law and the civil and criminal jurisprudence of this State....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 1988 | 258 Ga. 364
...the notary public had signed as an elector. Upon review of the enumerations of error, the briefs, and the record, we find no reversible error. We reach this conclusion after considering the competing interests inherent in the recall procedure. OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 26, 1998 | 494 S.E.2d 656, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 325
...rom prior opinions, the facts stated in the recall applications were sufficiently specific to place the public and appellees on notice of the substance of appellant’s complaint. See generally Hamlett, supra.
The rationale for the Recall Act, OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq., is “the insurance of governmental accountability.” Parker v....
CopyPublished | 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. Jones, for appellants.
Meeks & Richardson, W. Gene Richardson, for appellee.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
OCGA §
21-4-1 et seq.
See Hunter v....
...734, 737 (438 SE2d 896) (1994) (following a judicial determination that a prior application was legally insufficient under OCGA §
21-4-6 “there is no statutory provision proscribing the filing of an additional application” ) (emphasis supplied).
OCGA §§
21-4-3 (7.1) and
21-4-11 (a).
See Hunter, 265 Ga....
