Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §21-4-14, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1721, § 1.)
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).
- 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.
- 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).
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-11-13
Citation: 265 Ga. 858, 463 S.E.2d 124
Snippet: recall effort should be enjoined because OCGA § 21-4-14 (b) prevents the issuance of any further application
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-01-24
Citation: 438 S.E.2d 896, 263 Ga. 734, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 319, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 52
Snippet: Eaves v. Harris, supra at 4-5 (2) (b). 2. OCGA § 21-4-14 (a) provides limitations as to the filing of additional