Writ only available where parties' rights not otherwise protected.

- It is only when there is something in the nature of the action or proceeding that makes it apparent that the rights of the parties litigant cannot be adequately protected by any other remedy than by the writ of prohibition that the writ should be granted. Martin v. Crawford, 199 Ga. 497, 34 S.E.2d 699 (1945).

Writ may enjoin contempt citation by justice of peace.

- A rule for contempt against person refusing to submit to arrest, issued by justice of peace was enjoined by writ of prohibition. Ormond v. Ball, 120 Ga. 916, 48 S.E. 383 (1904).

Writ available to petitioner who was imprisoned for civil contempt.

- Petitioner, who had been imprisoned for eight months after a civil contempt hearing for which there was no transcript or brief of the evidence, and who had otherwise exhausted available remedies, was entitled to the protection of the writ of prohibition. Russell v. Evans, 260 Ga. 754, 400 S.E.2d 11 (1991).

Writ applicable to probate judge to stop sanity hearing.

- The writ will lie to prevent judge of the probate court, who has appointed a lunacy commission to determine the sanity of one indicted for crime and set a time for the hearing, from proceeding further therewith. State ex rel. Graham, 135 Ga. 259, 69 S.E. 115 (1910).

Fact that party fears court will not obey laws would hardly justify an injunction in the nature of a writ of prohibition to stop it from carrying its judgment into effect. Mayor of Americus v. Mitchell, 74 Ga. 377 (1884).

Writ not applicable to legislative or administrative acts.

- The writ of prohibition lies only to restrain the unlawful exercise of judicial functions by an inferior tribunal, acts of an administrative or of a legislative character not falling within its providence. Doughty, Pearson & Co. v. Walker, 54 Ga. 595 (1875); Fite v. Black, 85 Ga. 413, 11 S.E. 782 (1890).

Writ not applicable to magistrate court policy decisions.

- Because the State, in the person of the District Attorney, attempted to avoid the restrictions in O.C.G.A. § 5-7-1 et seq., by attacking by way of mandamus and prohibition an alleged magistrate court policy concerning rulings made in criminal prosecutions, and because the State had no ability to appeal the policy, the trial court erred by considering the State's petition for mandamus and prohibition. Magistrate Court v. Fleming, 284 Ga. 457, 667 S.E.2d 356 (2008).

No writ of prohibition will lie against a grand jury since it is not an inferior court. Almand v. Brock, 227 Ga. 586, 182 S.E.2d 97 (1971).

Where a court of inquiry has been held and a prisoner bound over to the grand jury, a writ of prohibition will not lie to restrain the committing court, the grand jury, and the district attorney from taking further action until another court of inquiry is held. Almand v. Brock, 227 Ga. 586, 182 S.E.2d 97 (1971).

District attorney cannot be classified as an inferior court so as to be subject to a writ of prohibition. Almand v. Brock, 227 Ga. 586, 182 S.E.2d 97 (1971).

Discovery, continuance in criminal proceedings unauthorized.

- The defendant filed a suit for mandamus and prohibition against the solicitor and the judge to whom the defendant's case was assigned, seeking the solicitor's compliance with the defendant's requests for discovery, as well as a continuance of the criminal proceedings against the defendant until the solicitor complied with the defendant's discovery requests. Since the court was under no duty to grant a continuance and the solicitor was under no duty to provide discovery, such extraordinary relief was not authorized and the court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. Scott v. McLaughlin, 258 Ga. 407, 369 S.E.2d 257 (1988).

Application of laches to mandamus.

- Supreme Court of Georgia concludes that case law supporting that a mandamus action can be barred by gross laches is the correct rule; thus, Crow v. McCallum, 215 Ga. 692 (1960), and its progeny were wrongly decided and overruled. Marsh v. Clarke County Sch. Dist., 292 Ga. 28, 732 S.E.2d 443 (2012).

Cited in Coleman v. Glenn, 103 Ga. 458, 30 S.E. 297, 68 Am. St. R. (1898); Templeman v. Jeffries, 172 Ga. 895, 159 S.E. 248 (1931); Burgess v. Friar, 183 Ga. 386, 188 S.E. 526 (1936); Henry v. State, 214 Ga. 527, 449 S.E.2d 79 (1994).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Prohibition, §§ 41, 42, 57.

C.J.S.

- 72A C.J.S., Prohibition, § 1 et seq.

ALR.

- Prohibition as proper remedy to prevent enforcement of judgment which has been reversed or modified on appeal, or from which an appeal, with supersedeas or stay, is pending, 70 A.L.R. 105.

Writ of prohibition, 77 A.L.R. 245.

Right of court upon application for prohibition to consider issues of fact dehors the record in the inferior court, 99 A.L.R. 984.

Prohibition as remedy in case of defective indictment, information, or complaint, 102 A.L.R. 298.

Constitutionality of statute as proper question for determination in prohibition proceeding, 113 A.L.R. 796.

Provisional or alternative writ or order to show cause as condition of granting peremptory or absolute writ of prohibition or mandamus, 116 A.L.R. 659.

Prohibition as available remedy to restrain performance of a ministerial act by a judicial officer, 117 A.L.R. 1398.

Assumption of jurisdiction by court before completion of administrative procedure as ground of prohibition, 132 A.L.R. 738.

Other remedies as adequate or inadequate for purposes of an application for a writ of prohibition against contempt proceedings, 136 A.L.R. 715.

Adequacy of remedy by appeal in criminal cases to preclude prohibition sought on the ground of lack or loss of jurisdiction, 141 A.L.R. 1262.

Prohibition to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, 159 A.L.R. 1283.

Mandamus or prohibition as remedy to enforce right to jury trial, 41 A.L.R.2d 780.

Availability of writ of prohibition to prevent illegal or unauthorized taking of depositions, 73 A.L.R.2d 1169.

Availability of mandamus or prohibition to review order of reference to master or auditor, 76 A.L.R.2d 1120.

Prohibition as appropriate remedy to restrain civil action for lack of jurisdiction of the person, 92 A.L.R.2d 247.

Prohibition as appropriate remedy to prevent allegedly disqualified judge from proceeding with case, 92 A.L.R.2d 306.

Prohibition or mandamus as appropriate remedy to review ruling on change of venue in civil case, 93 A.L.R.2d 802.

Prohibition as appropriate remedy to restrain civil action for lack of venue, 93 A.L.R.2d 882.

Availability of mandamus or prohibition to compel or to prevent discovery proceedings, 95 A.L.R.2d 1229.

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

Judgment granting or denying writ of mandamus or prohibition as res judicata, 21 A.L.R.3d 206.

Availability of writ of prohibition or similar remedy against acts of public prosecutor, 16 A.L.R.4th 112.