O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 5-6-15 (2019)

Certiorari from Supreme Court to Court of Appeals

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The writ of certiorari shall lie from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals as provided by Article VI, Section VI, Paragraph V of the Constitution of this state.

History

(Orig. Code 1863, § 3957; Code 1868, § 3977; Code 1873, § 4049; Code 1882, § 4049; Civil Code 1895, § 4634; Civil Code 1910, § 5180; Code 1933, § 19-101; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 47.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, Rules 28 et seq. Applications, how made, Rules of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, Rule 16.

Law reviews. - For annual survey of domestic relations law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 221 (2004).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Habeas petition improperly granted. - Writ of habeas corpus granted to a prisoner was reversed because the prisoner had presented the same issues raised in a habeas petition to the trial court and relief had been denied, and the prisoner’s appeal of that decision was rejected by the appellate courts; the prisoner’s claim was procedurally barred. Thompson v. Stinson, 279 Ga. 196, 611 S.E.2d 29 (2005). Habeas petition was untimely. - Because a state prisoner did not appeal a conviction to the state supreme court, the conviction became final ten days after the appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the prisoner was not entitled to seek certiorari review to the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Thus, the habeas petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); although the Georgia Constitution circumscribed review by the state supreme court, the state supreme court placed no limit on its certiorari jurisdiction under Ga. Const. 1983,

Art. VI, O.C.G.A. § 5-6-15, and Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 40. Pugh v. Smith, 465 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). Cited in Daniels v. Commissioners of Pilotage, 147 Ga. 295, 93 S.E. 887 (1917); McDonald v. Georgia Fed’n of Labor, 178 Ga. 313, 173 S.E. 662 (1933); Gullatt v. Slaton, 189 Ga. 758, 8 S.E.2d 47 (1940); Butler v. City of Dublin, 191 Ga. 551, 13 S.E.2d 362 (1941); 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); Sonesta Int’l Hotels Corp. v. Colony Square Co., 482 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1973); McClung v. Richardson, 232 Ga. 530, 207 S.E.2d 472 (1974); Shantha v. Municipal Court, 240 Ga. 280, 240 S.E.2d 32 (1977); Housworth v. Glisson, 485 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ga. 1978); Mulling v. Wilson, 245 Ga. 773, 267 S.E.2d 212 (1980); Board of Trustees v. Christy, 154 Ga. App. 488, 269 S.E.2d 33 (1980); City of Adairsville v. Barton, 159 Ga. App. 810, 285 S.E.2d 581 (1981); Jackson v. State, 286 Ga. 407, 688 S.E.2d 351 (2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Propriety of certiorari to review decisions of public officer or board

granting, denying, or revoking permit, certificate, or license required as condition

Page: 497

Date: 06/14/13 Time: 12:43:34

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

of exercise of particular right or privilege, 102 ALR 534. Legislature’s express denial of right of

appeal as affecting right to review on the merits by certiorari or mandamus, 174 ALR 194.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: State v. Tyson, 544 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tyson, 544 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 8× “After going to such lengths to unnecessarily invoke this Court's constitutional power, the majority, without comment or explanation, summarily affirms the trial court's denial of Tyson's request, pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-5, to be released on bail pending the disposition of the…”
Cheeley v. Henderson, 405 S.E.2d 865 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 8× “" OCGA § 5-6-15. In order to assist the parties, this Court engages in the practice of informing the parties of the issues that were of particular concern to the Court at the time the writ was granted.”
Waldrip v. Head, 532 S.E.2d 380 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 4× “5 (1998); OCGA § 5-6-15 (1995); Ga. Sup.Ct. R. 38-45.”
Mclean v. Cont'l Wingate Co., Inc., 476 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “IV; OCGA § 5-6-15; Court of Appeals Rules 37 and 38.”
In Re Allan G. Stroh Et Al., 534 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 4× “V; OCGA § 5-6-15; Holliman v. State, 175 Ga.”
Waldrop v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 711 F. App'x 900 (11th Cir. 2017). “§ 9-14-52 (habe-as corpus proceedings); O.C.G.A. § 5-6-15 (providing that writ of certiorari by Georgia Supreme Court is as provided in Ga.”
Jackson v. State, 688 S.E.2d 351 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “Because the deadlines are mandated by our own Court Rules, not statute, compare OCGA § 5-6-15 (“The writ of certiorari shall lie from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals as provided by Article VI, Section VI, Paragraph V of the Constitution of this state.”
Russ v. Am. Tel. & Tel., 493 S.E.2d 46 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “This includes opportunity for petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of Georgia, after this Court either decides the appeal or denies an application for full review.”
Lynn v. Caldwell (S.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “V; O.C.G.A. § 5-6-15; Ga. Sup. Ct. Rule 40. Thus, Petitioner’s Application is DENIED.”
Fallon Mays v. Sfr Xii Owner 2 Lp (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “To the extent that Mays seeks appellate review of one or more of our orders in Case No.”
Tara-Lewanna Abdullah v. Pennymac Loan Servs., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Abdullah’s request for a writ of certiorari is DENIED, as certiorari is not a recognized procedure for seeking appellate review in this Court. See generally Ga. Const.”
Bledsoe v. Banke, 376 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 5-6-15; 9-6-20; McClung v. Richardson, 232 Ga.”
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.