rejecting the need to file an original petition in the appellate courts where a superior court judge is named as a respondent for the superior court’s capacity to hear and determine the matter upon the disqualification of the respondent judge and the appointment of another superior court judge
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the need to file an original petition in the appellate courts where a superior court judge is named as a respondent for the superior court’s capacity to hear and determine the matter upon the disqualification of the respondent judge and the appointment of another superior court judge
- explaining that the need to resort to the appellate courts for mandamus relief is “extremely rare”
- a party seeking mandamus relief must pursue such relief in the superior court and obtain a ruling thereon
- original petitions for mandamus are to be filed in superior court rather than in appellate courts
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved in part, on other grounds by Arnold v. Alexander, 321 Ga. 330 (2025)
251 Ga. 436 ( 306 SE2d 655 ) (1983), disapproved on other grounds, Arnold v. Alexander, 321 Ga. 330, 336
Declined to follow by Clark v. Hunstein, 291 Ga. 646 (2012)
We therefore reject the Attorney General’s argument that we should dismiss this case because Clark failed to follow the procedure adopted in Brown for mandamus petitions against superior court judges.
The opinion
Hill, Chief Justice.
Prior to the effective date of the Constitution of 1983, this court had no original jurisdiction. See Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-3104).
The Constitution of 1983, effective July 1, 1983, provides that “Each court may exercise such powers as necessary in aid of its jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate its judgments; but only the superior and appellate courts shall have the power to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction.” (Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-2704).)
In the matter before us, petitioner has filed a petition for mandamus seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to require the respondent, a superior court judge, to enter an order in a matter allegedly pending more than thirty days in violation of OCGA § 15-6-21 (a) (Code Ann. § 24-2620). Without considering the merits of this petition, we find it appropriate to specify, at least as is applicable to the case at hand, the procedure to be followed before seeking to invoke this court’s original jurisdiction.
Generally, the superior courts of this state have the power, in proper cases, to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction, and hence the need to resort to the appellate courts for such relief by petition filed in the appellate courts will be extremely rare.
There may occasionally appear to be a need to file an original petition in the Supreme Court to issue process in the nature of
*437
mandamus, and perhaps quo warranto or prohibition, where a superior court judge is named as the respondent. This appearance is misleading. Such petition may be filed in the appropriate superior court. Being the respondent, the superior court judge will disqualify, another superior court judge will be appointed to hear and determine the matter, and the final decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court for review. Anything to the contrary in
Shreve v. Pendleton,
129 Ga. 374 ( 58 SE 880 ) (1907), will no longer be followed.
Decided September 8, 1983.
Phillip Brown,
pro se.
Willis B. Sparks, District Attorney,
for appellee.
The petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court is therefore dismissed.
Petition for Writ Dismissed.
All the Justices concur.