Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §9-10-14, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 883, § 1.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1985, "Department of Corrections" was substituted for "Department of Offender Rehabilitation" in the first sentence of subsection (d).
- Ga. L. 1985, p. 883, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provided that that Act would apply to actions presented for filing on or after July 1, 1985.
- For article, "The Writ of Habeas Corpus in Georgia," see 12 Ga. St. B.J. 20 (2007).
- Where a prisoner completed a form provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts in filing the prisoner's habeas corpus petition, dismissal of the application was improper even though the verification statement did not comply with the traditional form. Heaton v. Lemacks, 266 Ga. 189, 466 S.E.2d 7 (1996).
- In a case in which a federal district court found that a state inmate's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, were time-barred, the inmate was not entitled to an equitable tolling. The inmate's contention that prison officials refused to provide the inmate the appropriate form to file a state court action did not warrant equitable tolling because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-14 did not apply to federal lawsuits. Price v. Owens, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2009).
- Georgia General Assembly's use of that phrase "the Department of Corrections and local penal and correctional institutions for use by their inmates" in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-14(d) supports the conclusion that the phrase "state or local penal or correctional institution" used in subsection (b) refers only to those institutions located in Georgia. Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480, 738 S.E.2d 614 (2013).
- Georgia Supreme Court dismissed an inmate's petition for a writ of mandamus because the inmate was not incarcerated in Georgia; thus, the filing requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-10-14(b) were not applicable to the inmate, and the inmate should have filed the petition initially with a Georgia superior court. Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480, 738 S.E.2d 614 (2013).
- An inmate's complaint for mandamus relief against a state prison warden and the commissioner of the department of corrections should not have been permitted to proceed as the inmate failed to use the form required by O.C.G.A. § 9-10-14(b); the language of the statute was unambiguous and did not provide for any exceptions. Donald v. Price, 283 Ga. 311, 658 S.E.2d 569 (2008).
- Clerk of court acts contrary to the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-10-14(b) when the clerk accepts for filing a complaint or initial pleading against a Georgia agency or official that is not in accord with the statute's requirements; the statutory language is unambiguous and does not provide for any exceptions: the clerk of a Georgia court is not to docket a mandamus petition without the statutorily required form. Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480, 738 S.E.2d 614 (2013).
Cited in King v. State, 268 Ga. 384, 493 S.E.2d 189 (1997).
19A Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Penal and Correctional Institutions, § 3.
Warning: 'results' key not found in API response
No results found for Georgia Code 9-10-14.