Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-6-27 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6. Extraordinary Writs, 9-6-1 through 9-6-66.

ARTICLE 2 MANDAMUS

9-6-27. Time of hearing; notice; how and when issues of fact determined.

  1. Upon the presentation of an application for mandamus, if the mandamus nisi is granted the judge shall cause the same to be returned for trial not less than ten nor more than 30 days from such date. The defendant shall be served at least five days before the time fixed for the hearing.
  2. If no issue of fact is raised by the application and answer, the case shall be heard and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury.
  3. If an issue of fact is involved, it may be heard by the judge upon the consent of all parties. Otherwise, the case shall be set for trial upon the first day of the next term of the superior court as other jury cases are tried. However, if the court has a scheduled session for jury trials which will occur before the next term, the case shall stand for trial at the present term.

(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.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Section intended to facilitate swift disposition.

- 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).

Trial without jury where no issue of fact.

- 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).

Proper notice of hearing.

- 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).

When no hearing required.

- 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).

Dismissal of mandamus petition proper.

- 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus, §§ 438, 441.

C.J.S.

- 55 C.J.S., Mandamus, §§ 319, 332.

ALR.

- Summary judgment in mandamus or prohibition cases, 3 A.L.R.3d 675.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-6-27

Total Results: 12  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Haugen v. Henry Cnty., 594 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 48 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 1, 2004 | 277 Ga. 743, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 763

...He alleged that, pursuant to OCGA § 48-8-121(g)(1)(B) and *326 (g)(2), any "excess proceeds" must be used to reduce ad valorem taxes. The County moved to dismiss and the trial court granted the motion on procedural and on substantive grounds. It found that Haugen had failed to comply with OCGA § 9-6-27(a), because no mandamus nisi was granted and served on the County....
...(B) and (g)(2). Haugen appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing all claims against the County. 1. Under OCGA § 9-11-4(k), "ordinary process" may be used in a mandamus action as an alternative method of service to that authorized by OCGA § 9-6-27(a). DeKalb County v. Chapel Hill, 232 Ga. 238, 239(1), 205 S.E.2d 864 (1974). Thus, Haugen's failure to comply with OCGA § 9-6-27(a) is immaterial, because he served the County in the ordinary manner. The County's reliance on OCGA § 9-11-81 is misplaced, since OCGA § 9-6-27(a) complements, rather than conflicts with OCGA § 9-11-4(k), which expressly establishes that [t]he methods of service provided in this Code section may be used as alternative methods of service ......
...and, in any such proceeding, service shall be sufficient when made in accordance with the statutes relating particularly to the proceeding or in accordance with this Code section. See In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 265 Ga. 326, 329(2), 454 S.E.2d 780 (1995) (using OCGA § 9-6-27 as the alternative to OCGA § 9-11-4)....
Copy

Bd. of Com'rs of Dougherty Cnty. v. Saba, 598 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 24, 2004 | 278 Ga. 176, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1706

...We consolidated the two appeals for review. [4] On remand, the trial court is reminded of the statutory right to a jury trial in a mandamus action should a question of fact be raised by the application and answer, and the statutory timing requirement for such a trial provided in OCGA § 9-6-27....
Copy

In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 94-70, 265 Ga. 326 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 17, 1995 | 454 S.E.2d 780, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1100

...577, 581 (97 SE 532) (1918); OCGA § 9-6-20. Although these orders appear to be in the nature of mandamus, a magistrate court does not have the power to issue writs of mandamus, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV, nor was the required notice given or hearing held, OCGA § 9-6-27....
Copy

Vargas v. Morris, 465 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 8, 1996 | 266 Ga. 141, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 174

...the creation of a legitimate claim of entitlement to parole as of the date tentatively set. Cf. State Bd. of Educ. v. Drury, 263 Ga. 429, 431, 437 S.E.2d 290 (1993). The trial court did not err when it denied appellant mandamus relief. 4. While OCGA § 9-6-27(c) provides for a jury trial in a mandamus action where an issue of fact is involved, appellant was not entitled to a jury trial on his petition for mandamus since only a legal issue was presented for decision....
Copy

Hamilton v. Telfair Cnty. Sch. Dist., 455 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 17, 1995 | 265 Ga. 304, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1111

...ppellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the school district to afford her the hearing mandated by OCGA §§ 20-2-940 and 942 when a teacher is demoted. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the mandamus petition pursuant to OCGA § 9-6-27, the trial court denied the petition, concluding that appellant had failed to establish that the reassignment had caused her to suffer a decrease in salary or a diminishment of responsibility....
Copy

Tobin v. Cobb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 604 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 12, 2004 | 278 Ga. 663, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3324

...At the ensuing hearing, defendants urged the court to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that petitioners have an adequate remedy at law, to wit: the Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq. The court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed. 1. Relying upon OCGA § 9-6-27(b), petitioners assert that, inasmuch as the court issued a mandamus nisi, it was bound to issue a mandamus absolute since defendants did not file an answer....
Copy

Goldman v. Johnson, 297 Ga. 115 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 11, 2015 | 772 S.E.2d 704

...y, there was no error in the denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1 Goldman argues that she was entitled to have a jury hear her petition for a writ of mandamus. But OCGA § 9-6-27 (b) plainly provides that, if a petition for a writ of mandamus does not require the resolution of any issues of fact, the petition “shall be heard and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury.” No matter what facts Go...
Copy

Hansen v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 295 Ga. 385 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 2014 | 761 S.E.2d 35

...We reject Hansen’s contention that the trial court erred by denying the request for a mandamus nisi without first holding a hearing, as our mandamus statute clearly authorizes the trial court to do just that where the petition is meritless. See OCGA § 9-6-27 (a) (providing for hearing only “if the mandamus nisi is granted” (emphasis added)); Kappelmeier v....
Copy

Ferdinand v. City of Atlanta, 674 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 9, 2009 | 285 Ga. 121, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 751

...433, 569 S.E.2d 855) (2002). Accordingly, the trial court's final judgment is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. [3] Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 9-6-27(a) reads: Upon the presentation of an application for mandamus, if the mandamus nisi is granted the judge shall cause the same to be returned for trial not less than ten nor more than 30 days from such date....
...rlocutory injunction two days before the hearing. Ferdinand also contends that factual issues must be considered in any mandamus determination and maintains that he did not consent to having any mandamus issue heard by the court without a jury. OCGA § 9-6-27(c) reads: If an issue of fact is involved, it may be heard by the judge upon the consent of all parties....
Copy

Watson v. Matthews, 692 S.E.2d 338 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 22, 2010 | 286 Ga. 784, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 865

...de over it. Judge Matthews moved to dismiss the action; the motion to dismiss was granted without a hearing, and Watson appeals. 1. Watson contends that it was error for the trial court to fail to hold a hearing on the motion to dismiss, citing OCGA § 9-6-27....
...subpoena items from the trial judge's chambers. [2] Watson contends that, at some point during the progress of the defamation suit, Judge Matthews dismissed a notice of appeal that she had filed from what she believed was a contempt order. [3] OCGA § 9-6-27 provides: (a) Upon the presentation of an application for mandamus, if the mandamus nisi is granted the judge shall cause the same to be returned for trial not less than ten nor more than 30 days from such date....

Goldman v. Johnson, Judge (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 11, 2015 | 286 Ga. 784, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 865

...there was no error in the denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. 1 Goldman argues that she was entitled to have a jury hear her petition for a writ of mandamus. But OCGA § 9-6-27 (b) plainly provides that, if a petition for a writ of mandamus does not require the resolution of any issues of fact, the petition “shall be heard and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury.” No matter what facts Go...

Hansen v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors (Ga. 2014).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 30, 2014 | 286 Ga. 784, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 865

...We reject Hansen’s contention that the trial court erred by denying the request for a mandamus nisi without first holding a hearing, as our mandamus statute clearly authorizes the trial court to do just that where the petition is meritless. See OCGA § 9-6-27 (a) (providing for hearing only “if the mandamus nisi is granted” (emphasis supplied)); Kappelmeier v....