O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Recall Act of 1989.”
History
Code 1981, § 21-4-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1721, § 1.
Annotations
Cross references. Vacation of office, T. 45, C. 5.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construction with other law. - A city commissioner’s removal from office, based on acts committed prior to taking office, was erroneous because: (1) removal was not authorized by the city’s charter; (2) the commissioner’s conduct of maintaining innocence until the entry of a guilty plea after taking office was not an official act or one done under the color of the office; and (3) the acts committed did not prevent the commissioner from per-
forming the duties of that post. Moreover, while the acts committed did not subject the commissioner to removal pursuant to the terms of the city charter, the acts would have been more appropriately the subject of a recall petition pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-4-1 et seq. Ciccio v. City of Hephzibah, 289 Ga. App. 134, 656 S.E.2d 245, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 16 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C0862, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 474 (Ga. May 19, 2008).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Validity, under state constitutions, of private shopping center’s prohibition or regulation of political, social, or religious expression or activity, 52 A.L.R.5th 195. Sufficiency of particular charges as af-
fecting enforceability of recall petition, 114 A.L.R.5th 1. Sufficiency of technical and procedural aspects of recall petitions, 116 A.L.R.5th 1. Constitutionality of state and local recall provisions, 13 A.L.R.6th 661.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1988–2008 · leading case:
Hawks v. Hinely, 556 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
Hawks v. Hinely, 556 S.E.2d 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “On July 13, 2000, the Constituents filed applications with the Port Wentworth Election Superintendent seeking to recall the Officials pursuant to the Recall Act of 1989, OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq. 1 In their applications, the Constituents alleged that the Officials violated their…”
Citizens for Ethical Gov't, Inc. v. Gwinnett Place Assocs., L.P., 392 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. 1990).
· cites it 4× “IV; and OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq. Due to the statutory time limits imposed on the petitioners in a recall effort, any claim based on the right to collect signatures for a recall of an elected official would almost certainly be moot by the time it was appealed to this court.”
Collins v. Morris, 438 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1994).
· cites it 4× “S93A1311, appellants brought a separate declaratory judgment action attacking the constitutionality of the Recall Act, OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq. The superior court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and, in Case No.”
Steele v. Honea, 409 S.E.2d 652 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 4× “" [1] Specifically, the petitions alleged: [The commissioners] participated in meetings of the Henry County Board of Commissioners on August 10, September 15, November 5, November 19 and November 20, 1990 at which there were discussion and actions taken regarding the creation of…”
Davis v. Shavers, 495 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 4× “[28] Given that the courts are involved at the beginning of the recall process, the allegations 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…”
Mitchell v. Wilkerson, 372 S.E.2d 432 (Ga. 1988).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq. The statute does not specify grounds for a recall election but provides that the application for a recall petition must include among other things, the specific reason or reasons advanced by the sponsors for the support of the recall.”
Hamlett v. Hubbard, 416 S.E.2d 732 (Ga. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Factual background The trial court reviewed the sufficiency of the petition as provided in OCGA § 21-4-6, as amended, and held that the allegations of the petition were "insufficient to justify the holding of a recall election.”
Davis v. Shavers, 484 S.E.2d 243 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The Recall Act of 1989 (OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq.) sets out the process by which an elected official may be recalled.”
Brooks v. Branch, 424 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 2× “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”).”
Hunter v. George, 458 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. 1995).
· cites it 2× “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 fees.”
DeLong v. Welch, 533 S.E.2d 724 (Ga. 2000).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 21-4-6 (f) was amended in 1998 to provide for judicial review of the factual allegations of 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.”
Parker v. McCants, 369 S.E.2d 481 (Ga. 1988).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 21-4-1 et seq. The rationale for the statute is the insurance of governmental accountability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.