Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-6-64 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 9-6-64 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 9-6-64

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

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

ARTICLE 4 QUO WARRANTO

9-6-64. How issues of law determined; time for final determination; appeal; application to issues of fact.

  1. In all applications for writs of quo warranto, of informations in the nature of quo warranto, or of proceedings by such writs to determine the right to hold office, where the case presented by the applicant involves only questions of law, the same may be determined, as are equitable proceedings, by the judge of the superior court before whom the case was begun; and the judge shall so order all the proceedings connected with and usual in such cases that the final determination shall be had by him within ten days from the commencement of the action, application, or proceeding. If either party to the application or proceeding desires to except to the final decision of the judge of the superior court, he shall file an appeal as in other cases, and the duties of the clerk shall be the same as in other cases.
  2. All the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section are extended to proceedings quo warranto, or writs of that nature, involving issues of fact to be tried by a jury, when the same can be applied; but nothing in the subsection shall be construed to affect any rights or remedies in this class of cases which are not covered thereby.

(Ga. L. 1871-72, p. 41, §§ 1, 2; Code 1873, §§ 3206, 3208; Code 1882, §§ 3206, 3208; Civil Code 1895, §§ 4881, 4882; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5454, 5455; Code 1933, §§ 64-206, 64-207; Ga. L. 1946, p. 746, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Law authorizes direct appeal to judgment denying application to file an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Walker v. Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 76 S.E.2d 12 (1953).

Appeal of declaratory judgment seeking quo warranto relief.

- A declaratory judgment action seeking relief quo warranto regarding rights to positions on board of directors of nonprofit corporation appealed in Court of Appeals must be transferred to Supreme Court as only it has jurisdiction of all cases involving extraordinary remedies. Morales v. Sevananda, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 854, 293 S.E.2d 387 (1982).

Submission to jury does not deprive judge of power to direct verdict.

- In quo warranto proceedings, the fact that the judge submits the case to the jury to pass on questions of fact raised by the pleadings will not deprive the judge of power to direct a verdict that is demanded under the pleadings and evidence. Compton v. Hix, 184 Ga. 749, 193 S.E. 252 (1937).

Jury trial was not required in a proceeding to declare a vacancy in the office of city solicitor where the only issue was whether the solicitor was an elected official. This was a question of law. Hornsby v. Campbell, 267 Ga. 511, 480 S.E.2d 189 (1997).

In a quo warranto proceeding, because the only real point of contention concerned a question of law, specifically whether the city was empowered to remove a board member, and the answer to that question lied within the board's enabling legislation and bylaws, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. City of College Park v. Wyatt, 282 Ga. 479, 651 S.E.2d 686 (2007).

Although a jury trial was required in a quo warranto proceeding if there were factual questions at issue, O.C.G.A. § 9-6-65, a jury trial was not required when the only issues concerned questions of law, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-6-64(a); because the facts surrounding a city council's vote and a mayor's appointment of a city attorney were not in dispute, the writ was properly decided by a superior court judge. Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 774 S.E.2d 668 (2015).

Cited in Sweat v. Barnhill, 171 Ga. 294, 155 S.E. 18 (1930).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Quo Warranto, § 113.

C.J.S.

- 74 C.J.S., Quo Warranto, §§ 37, 80 et seq., 89 et seq.

ALR.

- Propriety of default judgment against defendant, without introduction of evidence, in quo warranto proceeding, 92 A.L.R.2d 1121.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 9-6-64 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 4

Jones v. Boone

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-29

Snippet: 511 (4) (480 SE2d 189) (1997); see also OCGA § 9-6-64 (a) (where application for writ of quo warranto

Jones v. Boone

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-29

Citation: 297 Ga. 437, 774 S.E.2d 668, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 494

Snippet: 511 (4) (480 SE2d 189) (1997); see also OCGA § 9-6-64 (a) (where application for writ of quo warranto

City of College Park v. Wyatt

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-10-09

Citation: 651 S.E.2d 686, 282 Ga. 479, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3056, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 728

Snippet: Ga. 511, 515(4), 480 S.E.2d 189 (1997); OCGA § 9-6-64(a). Here, Wyatt submitted a verified petition and

Hornsby v. Campbell

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-02-03

Citation: 480 S.E.2d 189, 267 Ga. 511, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 357, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 42

Snippet: refusing to submit the case for a jury trial. OCGA § 9-6-64(a) provides that where an application for a writ