O.C.G.A. § 5-4-3 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS ANALYSIS GENERAL CONSIDERATION BOND DECISIONS FROM WHICH CERTIORARI IS AVAILABLE 1. IN GENERAL 2. APPLICATION PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Page: 221

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

1. IN GENERAL 2. SUFFICIENCY OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR General Consideration Right of certiorari is a constitutional right, and may be used to review any judgment of an inferior judicatory. Young v. Broyles, 16 Ga. App. 356, 85 S.E. 366 (1915). Right of certiorari, if pursued in due time, is unaffected by occurrences in lower court. Young v. Broyles, 16 Ga. App. 356, 85 S.E. 366 (1915). Right of certiorari may be exercised without moving for new trial in trial court. Young v. Broyles, 16 Ga. App. 356, 85 S.E. 366 (1915). Construction with O.C.G.A. § 51-1-27. - Upon the grant of certiorari in a medical malpractice action filed by plaintiff parents against a pediatrician, a nurse, and others, a Georgia trial court did not abuse the court’s discretion by prohibiting the parents from showing that the nurse failed to pass the nursing board examination, as such evidence was irrelevant, and even if it could be said that the evidence had any probative value, it was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. Snider v. Basilio, 281 Ga. 261, 637 S.E.2d 40 (2006). Each party may have writ in the party’s own favor in same cause, and pendency of first writ sued out is no ground for dismissing second. Cunningham v. Elliott, 92 Ga. 159, 18 S.E. 365 (1893). Writ of certiorari as full and adequate remedy at law. - Writ of certiorari ordinarily furnishes a full and adequate remedy at law for correction of errors in decisions by municipal corporations, courts, or councils, rendered in exercise of judicial powers; so that even though a property right may be primarily involved in such manner as would authorize injured party to resort to equity, one is not entitled to claim such relief, when one has already appeared before a municipal judicatory, and that body has rendered an adverse decision. Ballard v. Mayor of Carrollton, 194 Ga. 489, 22 S.E.2d 81 (1942). Absent sanction by judge, clerk is unauthorized to file application or issue

writ of certiorari. Bellew v. State Hwy. Dep’t, 127 Ga. App. 301, 193 S.E.2d 202 (1972). Failure to obtain sanction is not amendable defect. - Failure to obtain the requisite sanction from the appropriate judge is not an amendable defect if the 30-day time requirement for applying for certiorari under O.C.G.A. § 5-4-6(a) has expired. Cobb County v. Herren, 230 Ga. App. 482, 496 S.E.2d 558 (1998). Plaintiff may obtain order directing clerk to issue writ. - If clerk fails to issue writ of certiorari before term to which the writ is returnable, plaintiff may, if there has been no laches on the plaintiff ’s part, move the court for an order directing the clerk to issue a writ. Without such order, the clerk has no authority to issue a writ of certiorari subsequently to the term to which the writ was originally returnable, and a motion to dismiss will be sustained if one attempts to do so. Walea v. State, 121 Ga. 585, 49 S.E. 710 (1905). When first petition is sanctioned, but not filed with clerk. - When petition for certiorari to review judgment of justice of peace was sanctioned, but was never filed in office of clerk of superior court, petition was a mere nullity; and second petition for certiorari in same case, presented to judge of superior court within 30 days from date of judgment complained of, is not subject to dismissal on ground that petitioner has no legal right to present second petition for certiorari in same case. Weaver v. Moss, 71 Ga. App. 329, 30 S.E.2d 779 (1944). Factual statements of justice of peace, in answer to writ of certiorari presumed true until traversed. Shelton v. Doster, 99 Ga. App. 863, 109 S.E.2d 862 (1959). Magistrate’s return failing to send up proceedings. - Magistrate’s return is incomplete when the return fails to certify and send up any proceedings in the case. Hardy v. Hardy, 2 Ga. App. 530, 58 S.E. 779 (1907). An assignment of error that this duty was not complied with must be sustained.

Page: 222

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

General Consideration (Cont’d) Stoufer v. Missenheimer, 26 Ga. App. 554, 106 S.E. 560 (1921), later appeal, 28 Ga. App. 350, 111 S.E. 692 (1922). Failure of justice of peace to send up copies of proceedings in the justice’s court when the proceedings are necessary to determination of cause is good ground for dismissal of certiorari; certiorari will not be dismissed because the magistrate fails to send up copies of proceedings when errors complained of in petition as verified by answer can be fully considered and determined without reference to such proceedings. Lynn v. Crapps, 47 Ga. App. 744, 171 S.E. 398 (1933). When the magistrate has failed to certify and send up proceedings in the case, assignment of error that duty was not complied with must be sustained. Stoufer v. Missenheimer, 26 Ga. App. 554, 106 S.E. 560 (1921), later appeal, 28 Ga. App. 350, 111 S.E. 692 (1922). Remedy to review superior court judge’s refusal to sanction petition for certiorari is by writ of error to proper appellate court and not by petition to appellate court for mandamus to compel judge to sanction petition. Jones v. Anderson, 106 Ga. App. 590, 127 S.E.2d 719 (1962). Action under Dram Shop Act. - Upon certiorari review, given proof of spoliation under former O.C.G.A. § 24-2-22 in an action filed against a tavern pursuant to Georgia’s Dram Shop Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-1-40(b), the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to an injured party’s guardian as the tavern’s manager was aware of the potential for litigation and failed to preserve whatever videotaped evidence might have been captured as to whether one of the tavern’s intoxicated patron’s would soon be driving; hence, a rebuttable presumption arose against the tavern that the evidence destroyed would have been harmful to the tavern, rendering summary judgment inappropriate. Baxley v. Hakiel Indus., 282 Ga. 312, 647 S.E.2d 29 (2007). Denial of writ improper. - Since the municipal court did not inquire into the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the violation to which the defendant

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

confessed guilt, and the record likewise did not show any factual basis for the plea independent of such an inquiry, the superior court erred in denying a writ of certiorari. Brownlee v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. App. 174, 441 S.E.2d 492 (1994). Cited in McCardle v. Fogarty, 41 Ga. 626 (1871); Western & Atl. R.R. v. Jackson, 81 Ga. 478, 8 S.E. 209 (1888); Dixon v. State, 121 Ga. 346, 49 S.E. 311 (1904); Smith v. Marshall, 127 Ga. 374, 56 S.E. 416 (1907); Sapp v. Parrish, 3 Ga. App. 234, 59 S.E. 821 (1907); Thrasher v. Town of Center, 8 Ga. App. 391, 69 S.E. 36 (1910); Johnston v. Brenau College-Conservatory, 146 Ga. 182, 91 S.E. 85 (1916); Lowenstein v. Johnston, 23 Ga. App. 261, 98 S.E. 111 (1919); Partee v. Peters, 33 Ga. App. 694, 127 S.E. 660 (1925); Thompson v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co., 39 Ga. App. 809, 148 S.E. 621 (1929); O’Neal v. Lide, 45 Ga. App. 235, 164 S.E. 110 (1932); Statham v. State, 50 Ga. App. 165, 177 S.E. 522 (1934); Raley v. Board of Civil Serv. Comm’n, 61 Ga. App. 152, 5 S.E.2d 918 (1939); Cowart v. State, 62 Ga. App. 559, 8 S.E.2d 729 (1940); Butler v. City of Dublin, 191 Ga. 551, 13 S.E.2d 362 (1941); Lewenstein v. Curry, 75 Ga. App. 22, 42 S.E.2d 158 (1947); Titshaw v. Rushton, 83 Ga. App. 685, 64 S.E.2d 473 (1951); Beckerman v. City of Claxton, 92 Ga. App. 670, 89 S.E.2d 557 (1955); Morman v. Pritchard, 108 Ga. App. 247, 132 S.E.2d 561 (1963); Murdock v. Perkins, 219 Ga. 756, 135 S.E.2d 869 (1964); Manning v. A.A.B. Corp., 223 Ga. 111, 153 S.E.2d 561 (1967); Berry v. Consumer Credit, 124 Ga. App. 586, 184 S.E.2d 694 (1971); Sonesta Int’l Hotels Corp. v. Colony Square Co., 482 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1973); Goldstein v. Smith, 141 Ga. App. 493, 233 S.E.2d 864 (1977); International Funeral Servs., Inc. v. DeKalb County, 244 Ga. 707, 261 S.E.2d 625 (1979); Henson v. DeKalb County, 158 Ga. App. 348, 280 S.E.2d 393 (1981); Attwell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 159 Ga. App. 811, 285 S.E.2d 199 (1981); Kariuki v. DeKalb County, 253 Ga. 713, 324 S.E.2d 450 (1985); Allen v. City of Marietta, 601 F. Supp. 482 (N.D. Ga. 1985); Copeland v. White, 178 Ga. App. 644, 344 S.E.2d 436 (1986); Fisher v. City of Atlanta, 212 Ga. App. 635, 442 S.E.2d 762 (1994).

Page: 223

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

CERTIORARI TO SUPERIOR COURT Bond

Issuance of writ in criminal case from city court. - Application for writ of certiorari to correct errors alleged to have been committed in criminal court of Atlanta, need not be accompanied by bond conditioned for appearance of accused to answer and abide final order, sentence, and judgment of court. Laws v. State, 15 Ga. App. 361, 83 S.E. 279 (1914). Bond not prerequisite to issuance of writ of certiorari in criminal case from city court. Malone v. State, 27 Ga. App. 53, 107 S.E. 358 (1921). Bond as condition precedent to review by certiorari of recorder’s court conviction. - Filing of bond or pauper’s affidavit provided for under former Code 1933, §§ 19-214 and 19-215 (see O.C.G.A. § 5-4-20), condition precedent to application for certiorari to review judgment of conviction in recorder’s court. West v. City of College Park, 116 Ga. App. 355, 157 S.E.2d 491 (1967). Decisions from Which Certiorari Is Available 1. In General Decisions of municipal corporations, courts, or councils rendered in judicial capacity. - Writ of certiorari lies for correction of errors in decisions by municipal corporations, courts, or councils, like other inferior judicatories, when rendered in exercise of their judicial powers. City of Cedartown v. Pickett, 193 Ga. 840, 20 S.E.2d 263 (1942); 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff ’d, 482 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660, 45 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1975). Exercises of legislative, executive, or ministerial functions. - Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review or obtain relief from judgment, decision, or action of inferior judicatory or body rendered in exercise of legislative, executive, or ministerial functions. City of Cedartown v. Pickett, 193 Ga. 840, 20 S.E.2d 263 (1942); Presnell v. McCollum, 112 Ga. App. 579, 145 S.E.2d 770 (1965); 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff ’d, 482 F.2d 280

(5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660, 45 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1975). In determining whether a writ of certiorari will lie to a decision or judgment of an inferior court, a paramount question for consideration is whether there was exercised a judicial function as distinguished from a ministerial act, for certiorari is available for correction of erroneous judgments in exercise of judicial powers, but ordinarily is not a proper remedy to correct errors relating to ministerial acts. Hayes v. Brown, 205 Ga. 234, 52 S.E.2d 862 (1949). Certiorari lies only as to issues raised in trial court. - Error which may be corrected by writ of certiorari is one made by tribunal whose judgment is being reviewed because of such error. When it does not appear from the record that issue was made in trial court, it cannot be raised for first time by certiorari in superior court and reviewed in the Supreme Court. Smith v. Mayor of Macon, 202 Ga. 68, 42 S.E.2d 128, answer conformed to, 75 Ga. App. 136, 42 S.E.2d 569 (1947). Final determination required. - Appeal to the superior court from an order of the city courts may be taken only by petition for certiorari pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-4-3, and only from a ‘‘decision or judgment.’’ The writ of certiorari does not lie to correct a judgment of an inferior judicatory until after a final determination of the case. Jenga v. Deveaux, 193 Ga. App. 436, 388 S.E.2d 361 (1989). Certiorari will not lie to correct void judgment. McDonald v. Farmers Supply Co., 143 Ga. 552, 85 S.E. 861 (1915); Gravitt v. Mullins, 28 Ga. App. 806, 113 S.E. 61 (1922); Griggs v. City of Macon, 154 Ga. 519, 114 S.E. 899 (1922). Party winning party’s case completely in justice’s court is not entitled to writ. Shope v. Fite & Boston, 91 Ga. 174, 16 S.E. 990 (1893). When there are disputed issues of fact. - When in trial of case pending in justice’s court, there are disputed issues of fact, judgment rendered by magistrate cannot be directly reviewed by writ of certiorari, but there must be appeal, either to jury in that court or to superior

Page: 224

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

Decisions from Which Certiorari Is Available (Cont’d) 1. In General (Cont’d) court. Story v. Printup, 52 Ga. App. 818, 184 S.E. 752 (1936). When no issue of fact, justice court’s judgment is reviewable by certiorari, regardless of amount involved. Ray v. Rogers, 58 Ga. App. 804, 200 S.E. 193 (1938). Availability of certiorari to test sufficiency of evidence to warrant verdicts or judgments. - Ray v. Rogers, 58 Ga. App. 804, 200 S.E. 193 (1938). Available for decisions of any inferior judicatory. - O.C.G.A. § 5-4-3 has reference to the correction of errors in cases in which the writ of certiorari lies, and the writ shall apply to persons dissatisfied with the decision or judgment of any inferior judicatory. Pough v. State, 162 Ga. App. 63, 290 S.E.2d 300 (1982). Review of a recorder’s court decision. - Proper procedure for appealing decisions from a county recorder’s court is by certiorari to the superior court. Smith v. Gwinnett County, 246 Ga. App. 865, 542 S.E.2d 616 (2000). 2. Application Writ of certiorari lies when motion for new trial is overruled. Walker v. State, 8 Ga. App. 214, 68 S.E. 873 (1910). Certiorari may be used as means of reviewing judgment upon motion for new trial. Young v. Broyles, 16 Ga. App. 356, 85 S.E. 366 (1915). Justice court’s dismissal for want of prosecution. - From judgment of justice’s court dismissing case for want of prosecution, appeal to jury does not lie. If there is error in judgment, certiorari is remedy to have case reinstated. Dolvin, Davidson & Co. v. W.W. Stovall Co., 8 Ga. App. 37, 68 S.E. 488 (1910). Analyzing the limits of the public duty doctrine. - Upon certiorari review by the Georgia supreme court to examine a determination by the court of appeals that the public duty doctrine did not extend to the official actions of building inspectors, but was limited to the police protection activities of law enforcement officers, the supreme court upheld that determination, as: (1) despite a building

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

inspector’s contrary claim, the terms ‘‘police protection’’ and ‘‘police power’’ are not synonymous; and (2) case law provides that the public duty doctrine addresses only the provision of police protection services traditionally done by police law enforcement personnel. Gregory v. Clive, 282 Ga. 476, 651 S.E.2d 709 (2007). Certiorari granted from justice court’s judgment in suit on unverified open account. Hardy v. Hardy, 2 Ga. App. 530, 58 S.E. 779 (1907). Certiorari granted from justice court’s judgment concerning forcible entry and detainer. Taylor v. Gay, 20 Ga. 77 (1856); McDonald v. Cousins, 23 Ga. 227 (1857). Certiorari granted from justice court’s judgment taxing costs. Hewett v. Robertson, 124 Ga. 920, 53 S.E. 456 (1906). Certiorari granted from justice court’s judgment in proceeding to strengthen attachment bond. Gregory v. Clark, 73 Ga. 542 (1884). Juror’s names omitted from jury list. - Certiorari from justice court’s judgment denied when the jurors’ names were omitted from jury list. Mitchell v. Bradberry, 76 Ga. 15 (1885). Certiorari granted from justice court’s judgment in suit establishing lost papers. Humphrey v. Johnston, 13 Ga. App. 557, 79 S.E. 530 (1913). Section applicable to certiorari from city courts unless Act creating court provides otherwise. Miller v. State, 126 Ga. 558, 55 S.E. 405 (1906); Malone v. State, 27 Ga. App. 53, 107 S.E. 358 (1921). Certiorari to superior court lies from decisions of trial judge of municipal court of Atlanta, Fulton section, for party who wishes to complain of judgment, order, or ruling. Gavant v. Berger, 182 Ga. 277, 185 S.E. 506, answer conformed to, 53 Ga. App. 304, 185 S.E. 726 (1936). Writ of certiorari lies from judgment of police court. Davis v. City of Waycross, 10 Ga. App. 384, 73 S.E. 556 (1912). Certiorari unavailable as to magistrate’s judgment binding defendant over to answer to criminal offense. Griggs v. City of Macon, 154 Ga. 519, 114 S.E. 899 (1922).

Page: 225

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

Certiorari permitted from decision of ordinary (now judge of probate court) sitting as habeas corpus court. Chapman v. Woodruff, 34 Ga. 91 (1864); Malone v. State, 27 Ga. App. 53, 107 S.E. 358 (1921). Certiorari permitted from decision of ordinary (now judge of probate court) under former Code 1873, §§ 738, 739, 740 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-9-59), governing removal of obstructions on rights-of-way. Fortson v. Mattox, 67 Ga. 282 (1881). Certiorari permitted from decision of mayor and council acting in judicial capacity. Mayor of Macon v. Shaw, 16 Ga. 172 (1854); Carr v. City Council, 124 Ga. 116, 52 S.E. 300 (1905). Certiorari permitted from decision of county commissioners ordering opening of private right-of-way. Leathers v. Furr, 62 Ga. 421 (1879). Certiorari not available from ruling of plumbing inspector. City Council v. Loftis, 156 Ga. 77, 118 S.E. 666 (1923). Appeal from decision of recorder’s court. - Recorder’s Court of Chatham County is not such a ‘‘like court’’ within the meaning of O.C.G.A. § 5-4-3 establishing this court’s jurisdiction; therefore, the proper procedure for appealing from any decision of a recorder’s court is by application for a writ of certiorari. Ferrell v. State, 160 Ga. App. 881, 289 S.E.2d 3 (1982). Local constitutional amendment vesting the recorder’s court of a county with jurisdiction to take and entertain pleas of guilty in misdemeanor cases does not authorize a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals and the writ of certiorari is still the method of appealing the writ. Pough v. State, 162 Ga. App. 63, 290 S.E.2d 300 (1982). Proper method for obtaining review of a decision of a recorder’s court is either by direct appeal to the superior court, in the case of traffic violations, or by application for certiorari to the superior court. Franklin v. Recorder’s Court, 174 Ga. App. 498, 330 S.E.2d 429 (1985). Hearing before county board of commissioners issuing ‘‘order’’ finding liability for business taxes and directing that a fieri facias be issued for the amount of taxes due does not constitute a decision of an inferior judicatory

from which the taxpayer should petition for certiorari in the superior court where the hearing is not transcribed or recorded, but is memorialized only by the minutes of the meeting, the hearing is not conducted in accordance with judicial procedure, and the ordinance in question does not give an appellant as a matter of right a trial in accordance with judicial procedure. Accordingly, declaratory judgment relief is proper. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. DeKalb County, 167 Ga. App. 577, 306 S.E.2d 924 (1983). Petition for Certiorari 1. In General Special assignment of error necessary. - No questions are presented for review unless raised by special assignment of error. Huson v. Farmer, 53 Ga. App. 131, 185 S.E. 119 (1936). Petition concerning judgment or ruling of court which assigns no error is an absolute nullity. Clements v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co., 115 Ga. 851, 42 S.E. 222 (1902); Green v. Patterson, 25 Ga. App. 374, 103 S.E. 437 (1920). Assignments of error in petition for certiorari must be specific, and when based on rulings of trial court must specifically point out reasons why rulings are error. Grant v. State, 48 Ga. App. 162, 172 S.E. 89 (1933). 2. Sufficiency of Assignment of Error Must specify wherein verdict or judgment is erroneous. - Petition merely objecting to judgment, without stating reason, is insufficient. Papworth v. City of Fitzgerald, 111 Ga. 54, 36 S.E. 311 (1900); Harrell v. City of Quitman, 17 Ga. App. 299, 86 S.E. 662 (1915). Assignment of error stating only that judgment is contrary to law is insufficient. Davis v. Town of Gibson, 24 Ga. App. 813, 102 S.E. 466 (1920). Assignments of error must be specific whether contained in bill of exceptions or in petition for certiorari, and, when based upon decision of trial court, must specifically point out reason why decision is error. Wall v. Hawker Pottery Co., 27 Ga. App. 255, 108 S.E. 134 (1921).

Page: 226

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

Petition for Certiorari (Cont’d) 2. Sufficiency of Assignment of Error (Cont’d) Failure to point out error in rulings renders assignment of error insufficient. Illinois C.R.R. v. Banks, 31 Ga. App. 756, 122 S.E. 85 (1924). Mere general averment of error, in connection with which there is no statement or assignment whatever as to how or wherein rulings complained of were erroneous, presents no case or question for decision by judge of the superior court. Chan v. Judge, 36 Ga. App. 13, 134 S.E. 925 (1926); Davis v. Lee, 38 Ga. App. 667, 145 S.E. 110 (1928). When verdict or judgment is complained of, assignment of error, unless judgment is on demurrer (now motion to dismiss) or similar pleading or on motion for new trial, must specifically point out wherein verdict or judgment is erroneous. Feckoury v. Maloney, 40 Ga. App. 157, 149 S.E. 91 (1929). General exception to judgment suffices when it is alleged error stems from erroneous antecedent ruling, provided specific assignments of error are made and preserved as to such antecedent rulings. Louisville & N.R.R. v. Lovelace, 26 Ga. App. 286, 106 S.E. 6 (1921). Assignment of error upon jury charge must specify error or state alternate charge. - In petition for certiorari, assignment of error upon excerpt from charge of court presents no question for reviewing court when it is not pointed out wherein excerpt is erroneous, or why it should not have been given, or why different instructions should have been given. Maner v. State, 54 Ga. App. 282, 187 S.E. 692 (1936). Must set forth ordinance allegedly violated or deny ordinance’s existence. - Petition for certiorari from recorder’s court, seeking review by superior court of judgment, is fatally defective when the petition does not set out copy of ordinance upon which charge or summons is predicated, or else a denial of its existence. Wright v. City of Atlanta, 61 Ga. App. 650, 7 S.E.2d 215 (1940).

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari was fatally and fundamentally flawed, as the writ did not recite the provisions of the statute under which defendant was convicted, so the appellate court had no context within which to review the evidence. Collier v. Merck, 261 Ga. App. 831, 584 S.E.2d 1 (2003). Petition for certiorari from conviction for violation of municipal ordinance should contain provisions of ordinance. - When it is sought to review by certiorari a conviction on charge of having violated a municipal ordinance, existence of which is admitted in petition for certiorari, provisions of ordinance should be stated in petition, but it is not necessary that ordinance be literally copied therein. Childrey v. City of Atlanta, 62 Ga. App. 107, 7 S.E.2d 919 (1940). Because a city’s petition for certiorari plainly and distinctly asserted the errors complained of, the superior court did not err in denying the city’s motion to dismiss; moreover, the record reflected that the bar managers cited for violation of Atlanta, Ga., Code of Ordinances § 10-46 (1995) preserved the issue as to the constitutionality of the ordinance and the ordinance’s enforcement. City of Atlanta v. Jones, 283 Ga. App. 125, 640 S.E.2d 698 (2006). Certification of payment of costs and giving of security need not be attached to petition. - It is not necessary to attach to petition for certiorari a certificate of magistrate that costs have been paid and security given before sanction of petition of judge of superior court can be obtained. Jones v. Johnson & Ledbetter Constr. Co., 185 Ga. 323, 194 S.E. 902 (1938). Completed transcript of evidence adduced at board of education hearing is not required for certiorari petition under section, although appellant may elect to incorporate it in petition. Booth v. Ware County Bd. of Educ., 223 Ga. 583, 157 S.E.2d 469 (1967). Assignment of error that judgment complained of is contrary to law, truth, and justice, is insufficient. Huson v. Farmer, 53 Ga. App. 131, 185 S.E. 119 (1936).

Page: 227

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:5:31

GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Writ granted only when error complained of is erroneous as a matter of law. - Under this section, writ of certiorari may be granted only when the judgment complained of is erroneous as a matter of law, and a petition seeking such writ must set forth legal errors committed in police court or other inferior tribunal

and pray their correction by superior court. 1960-61 Op. Att’y Gen. p. 96. Appeals from a municipal court conviction of a traffic offense may lie in the Court of Appeals or in the superior court depending on the status of the municipal court and the nature of the offense. 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U85-18.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 14 Am. Jur. 2d, Certiorari, § 52 et seq. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. - 5B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Certiorari, §§ 81, 88.

C.J.S. - 14 C.J.S., Certiorari, § 30. 51 C.J.S., Justices of the Peace, § 430 et seq.