Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed dismissal of Teresa Watson's petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition against a superior court judge. The court held that no hearing was required because no mandamus nisi had issued and neither party requested oral argument. It further held that Watson had an adequate remedy at law through discovery and appeal in the underlying defamation action.
Holdings
- The trial court did not err by ruling on the petition without a hearing because no mandamus nisi had issued and neither party requested oral argument under Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3.
- Mandamus and prohibition were unavailable because Watson had an adequate remedy through discovery, ordinary judicial proceedings, and appeal in the underlying defamation action.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by ruling on Watson's mandamus petition without holding a hearing.
- Whether mandamus and prohibition were available when Watson had an adequate remedy through ordinary proceedings and appeal in the underlying defamation case.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Haugen v. Henry County, 277 Ga. 743, 744(1), 594 S.E.2d 324 (2004)(followed)
- DeKalb County v. Chapel Hill, Inc., 232 Ga. 238, 239-240(1), 205 S.E.2d 864 (1974)(followed)
- Nally v. Bartow County Grand Jurors, 280 Ga. 790, 792(5), 633 S.E.2d 337 (2006)(followed)
- Kappelmeier v. Iannazzone, 279 Ga. 131(2), 610 S.E.2d 60 (2005)(followed)
- Anderson v. Mergenhagen, 283 Ga. App. 546, 552(3), 642 S.E.2d 105 (2007)(followed)
- Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 273 Ga. 431, 543 S.E.2d 16 (2001)(followed)
- Jersawitz v. Riley, 269 Ga. 546, 500 S.E.2d 579 (1998)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…