Rothschild II v. Columbus Consolidated Government

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that plaintiffs seeking mandamus to enforce an alleged public duty need not prove the merits of their claim to establish standing under OCGA § 9-6-24. The court concluded that the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes concerning whether a park had been promised as part of a SPLOST-funded library project during a preliminary standing hearing. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Holdings

1. Under OCGA § 9-6-24, allegations that public officials failed to perform a public duty are sufficient to establish a citizen's standing to seek mandamus when the action concerns a public right; the plaintiff need not first prove the merits of the alleged violation or establish an ultra vires action.
2. Trial courts should not preliminarily resolve factual disputes regarding the merits of a claim in order to decide standing when the factual issue is identical to the merits of the claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether citizens seeking mandamus to enforce an alleged public duty must prove on the merits that government officials acted illegally or ultra vires in order to establish standing.
2. Whether a trial court may resolve a factual dispute identical to the merits of the claim at a preliminary hearing to determine standing.

Disposition

reversed