O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-6-22 (2019)

Enforcement of officer’s duties under Title 5

✓ 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

If any sheriff, clerk, or other officer fails to discharge any duty required of him by any provision of Title 5, upon petition the appellate court or the superior, state, or city court, as the case may be, may compel the performance of such duty by mandamus. No party shall lose any right by reason of the failure of the officer to discharge his duties when the party has been guilty of no fault himself and has exercised ordinary diligence to secure the discharge of such duties.

History

Laws 1845, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 450.; Code 1863, § 4172; Code 1868, § 4204;

Code 1873, § 4264; Code 1882, § 4264; Civil Code 1895, § 5555; Civil Code 1910, § 6169; Code 1933, § 6-918.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Clerks of superior and city courts are amenable to writ of mandamus to require them to perform their duties when they refuse, or for any cause fail to act. But if they act at all, however, erroneously, they are not liable to this process. Jones v. Smith, 83 Ga. App. 798, 65 S.E.2d 188, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 964 (1951). Concurrent jurisdiction of courts. - Under this section, the appellate courts and the superior court have concurrent

jurisdiction to compel by mandamus the performance of any duty of the officers of the superior court which may be necessary, and where the issues are such as cannot be determined by the appellate courts, it may dismiss the application and transmit the case to the superior court. Cooper v. Nisbet, 118 Ga. 872, 45 S.E. 692, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 746 (1903) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-22).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: Byrd v. Glanville, 813 S.E.2d 776 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
Byrd v. Glanville, 813 S.E.2d 776 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-6-22 (permitting person to petition appellate court to compel public officer to perform duty by mandamus).”
Herschel Gerald Byrd v. Ural Glanville, Judge (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-6-22 (permitting person to petition appellate court to compel public officer to perform duty by mandamus).”
Timothy Woodard v. Tracey Herrington (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “394, 395-396 ( 794 SE2d 597 ) (2016); OCGA § 9-6-22. 4 We note that the power given to the appellate courts to issue process in the nature of mandamus is merely enabling, not mandatory.”
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.