Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1882-83, p. 103, §§ 1, 2, 4; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4871, 4872, 4873; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5444, 5445, 5446; Code 1933, §§ 64-107, 64-108, 64-109.)
- Under law relating to mandamus, appearance and trial terms are abolished and a speedy decision upon the merits is intended and if the case involves no issue of fact, it may be heard and determined by the court; but if an issue of fact is made, it shall be in order for trial upon the first day of the next term of the superior court, as other jury cases are tried; and if the superior court is in session, or taking a recess at time fixed for trial in mandamus nisi, the same shall stand for trial at then present term. Bridges v. Poole, 176 Ga. 500, 168 S.E. 577 (1933).
- This section, in effect, provides that the judge may without a jury determine an application for mandamus when the answer to the mandamus nisi shall involve no issue of fact, but that if an issue of fact be involved the issue shall be tried before a jury. Chappell v. Small, 194 Ga. 143, 20 S.E.2d 916 (1942) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27).
If issue of fact is involved in mandamus case, such issue shall be tried by jury. City of Atlanta v. McLennan, 240 Ga. 407, 240 S.E.2d 881 (1977).
Parties to mandamus action may waive their right to jury trial either tacitly or expressly. City of Atlanta v. McLennan, 240 Ga. 407, 240 S.E.2d 881 (1977).
Objection to evidence as presenting issue for jury without merit where parties consented to hearing in accordance with this section. City of Camilla v. Norris, 134 Ga. 351, 67 S.E. 940 (1910) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27).
By introducing evidence without objection that case was for jury, party is presumed to consent to the trial of any issues of fact by judge. Talmadge v. Cordell, 170 Ga. 13, 152 S.E. 91 (1930).
Waiver of jury trial at first trial of civil case applies to retrials of the same case. City of Atlanta v. McLennan, 240 Ga. 407, 240 S.E.2d 881 (1977).
Jury trial required where county board of education refused to confirm election of applicants as trustees of school district, where issue arose as to whether members or former board contracted for indebtedness of the school district. Bryant v. Board of Educ., 156 Ga. 688, 119 S.E. 601 (1923).
Ga. L. 1972, p. 689, §§ 1-3 (see O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4) plainly permits ordinary service of process to be used in mandamus cases as an alternative to issuing mandamus nisi under former Code 1933, §§ 64-107, 64-108, and 64-109 (see O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27). DeKalb County v. Chapel Hill, Inc., 232 Ga. 238, 205 S.E.2d 864 (1974).
O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27(a) complemented rather than conflicted with O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(k), which expressly established that the methods of service could have been used as alternative methods of service in special statutory proceedings; a taxpayer's failure to comply with O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27(a) in a case seeking mandamus and injunctive relief against a county was immaterial, because the taxpayer served the county in the ordinary manner. Haugen v. Henry County, 277 Ga. 743, 594 S.E.2d 324, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 816, 125 S. Ct. 63, 160 L. Ed. 2d 22 (2004).
- In an action by a city to, inter alia, compel a county tax commissioner to pay school tax receipts, a trial court erred in converting a hearing on an interlocutory injunction into a final hearing on a permanent injunction and a writ of mandamus without the proper notice under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27(a); the commissioner was only given two days' notice and also did not consent to having any mandamus issue heard by the trial court without a jury under § 9-6-27(c) or to having the request for permanent injunctive relief under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65(a)(2) heard at the same time. Ferdinand v. City of Atlanta, 285 Ga. 121, 674 S.E.2d 309 (2009).
- A litigant was not entitled to a hearing on a petition for a writ of mandamus against a judge in a defamation action against the litigant under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27(a) because no mandamus nisi issued, and neither the litigant nor the judge requested oral argument under Ga. Unif. Super. Ct. R. 6.3. Watson v. Matthews, 286 Ga. 784, 692 S.E.2d 338 (2010).
Trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's request for a mandamus nisi without first holding a hearing as the mandamus statute clearly authorizes the trial court to deny a request if the petition is meritless. Hansen v. DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors, 295 Ga. 385, 761 S.E.2d 35 (2014).
- O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(a) of the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., provides a remedy that is as complete and convenient as mandamus; thus, the trial court did not err in dismissing the individuals' petition for mandamus under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27(b). Tobin v. Cobb County Bd. of Educ., 278 Ga. 663, 604 S.E.2d 161 (2004).
Cited in Dennington v. Mayor of Roberta, 130 Ga. 494, 61 S.E. 20 (1908); Tarver v. Mayor of Dalton, 134 Ga. 462, 67 S.E. 929 (1910); City of Blakely v. Singletary, 138 Ga. 632, 75 S.E. 1054 (1912); Ficklen v. Mayor of Wash., 141 Ga. 441, 81 S.E. 123 (1914); Mayor of Jeffersonville v. Taylor Iron Works & Supply Co., 154 Ga. 434, 114 S.E. 579 (1922); Browne v. Benson, 163 Ga. 707, 137 S.E. 626 (1927); Claxton State Bank v. R.S. Armstrong & Bro. Co., 185 Ga. 487, 195 S.E. 418 (1938); Powell v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 186 Ga. 420, 197 S.E. 792 (1938); Bradley v. Shelton, 189 Ga. 696, 7 S.E.2d 261 (1940); Ex parte Ross, 197 Ga. 257, 28 S.E.2d 925 (1944); South View Cem. Ass'n v. Hailey, 199 Ga. 478, 34 S.E.2d 863 (1945); Holt v. Clairmont Dev. Co., 222 Ga. 598, 151 S.E.2d 151 (1966); Vargas v. Morris, 266 Ga. 141, 465 S.E.2d 275 (1996).
- 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, §§ 438, 441.
- 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, §§ 319, 332.
- Summary judgment in mandamus or prohibition cases, 3 A.L.R.3d 675.
Total Results: 12
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11
Snippet: her petition for a writ of mandamus. But OCGA § 9-6-27 (b) plainly provides that, if a petition for a
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11
Citation: 297 Ga. 115, 772 S.E.2d 704, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 301
Snippet: her petition for a writ of mandamus. But OCGA § 9-6-27 (b) plainly provides that, if a petition for a
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30
Snippet: where the petition is meritless. See OCGA § 9-6-27 (a) (providing for hearing only “if the mandamus
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30
Citation: 295 Ga. 385, 761 S.E.2d 35, 2014 WL 2924946, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 532
Snippet: that where the petition is meritless. See OCGA § 9-6-27 (a) (providing for hearing only “¿/the mandamus
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-03-22
Citation: 692 S.E.2d 338, 286 Ga. 784, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 865, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 271
Snippet: hearing on the motion to dismiss, citing OCGA § 9-6-27.[3] Subsection (a) of that Code section provides
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-03-09
Citation: 674 S.E.2d 309, 285 Ga. 121, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 751, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 83
Snippet: direction. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 9-6-27(a) reads: Upon the presentation of an application
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-10-12
Citation: 604 S.E.2d 161, 278 Ga. 663, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3324, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 832
Snippet: and this appeal followed. 1. Relying upon OCGA § 9-6-27(b), petitioners assert that, inasmuch as the court
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-05-24
Citation: 598 S.E.2d 437, 278 Ga. 176, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1706, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 416
Snippet: requirement for such a trial provided in OCGA § 9-6-27. [5] Ga. L.1974, p. 702, § 3. [6] In 1991, subsection
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-03-01
Citation: 594 S.E.2d 324, 277 Ga. 743, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 763, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 185
Snippet: found that Haugen had failed to comply with OCGA § 9-6-27 (a), because no mandamus nisi was granted and served
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-01-08
Citation: 465 S.E.2d 275, 266 Ga. 141, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 174, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 8
Snippet: denied appellant mandamus relief. 4. While OCGA § 9-6-27(c) provides for a jury trial in a mandamus action
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-03-17
Citation: 265 Ga. 326, 454 S.E.2d 780, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1100, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 153
Snippet: the required notice given or hearing held, OCGA § 9-6-27. O’Neal would have certainly been authorized to
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-03-17
Citation: 455 S.E.2d 23, 265 Ga. 304, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1111, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 150
Snippet: hearing on the mandamus petition pursuant to OCGA § 9-6-27, the trial court denied the petition, concluding