Byrd v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | A18A1485 |
| Citation | 349 Ga.App. 19,825 S.E.2d 424 |
| Parties | BYRD v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
349 Ga.App. 19
825 S.E.2d 424
BYRD
v.
ROBINSON.
A18A1485
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
March 1, 2019
Herschel G. Byrd, pro se.
Paula M. Rafferty, for appellee.
McFadden, Presiding Judge.
Herschel Byrd has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court seeking to invoke our original jurisdiction to require the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk to transmit records to this court. But
because this is not one of the rare cases in which we will exercise such original jurisdiction, the petition must be dismissed.
[T]he 1983 Georgia Constitution gave [the Supreme Court of Georgia] and the Court of Appeals original mandamus jurisdiction. 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. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV.... We have construed this grant of authority as merely enabling, not mandatory. This [c]ourt has sought to maintain its general status as an appellate court, recognizing, among other things, that unlike trial courts, this [c]ourt has no established mechanism for developing an evidentiary record.
Clark v. Hunstein , 291 Ga. 646, 647-648 (1), 733 S.E.2d 259 (2012) (citations, punctuation, and emphasis omitted).
Unlike the appellate courts, the superior courts of this state are equipped to develop an evidentiary record and they
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 [appellate courts] to issue process in the nature of mandamus, and perhaps quo warranto or prohibition, where a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cook v. Smith
-
Hoechstetter v. Pickens Cnty.
...Ga.App. 15825 S.E.2d 424 (Mem)HOECHSTETTER et al.v.PICKENS COUNTY et al.A17A0565Court of Appeals of Georgia.March 1, 2019John J. Capo, Jasper, for Appellants.Hall Booth Smith, Phillp Edward Friduss, for Appellees. Miller, Presiding Judge.In Hoechstetter v. Pickens County , 341 Ga. App. 213,......
-
Blocker v. State
... ... VI, Sec. I, Par. IV. However, unlike appellate courts, ... superior courts are "equipped to develop an evidentiary ... record[.]" Byrd v. Robinson, 349 Ga.App. 19, 20 ... (825 S.E.2d 424) (2019). Thus, "[e]xcept in the rarest ... of cases, litigants seeking to invoke this ... ...
-
Mobley v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles
... ... jurisdiction (the need for which is extremely rare) is to ... file such petition in the appropriate lower court." ... Byrd v. Robinson, 349 Ga.App. 19, 20 (825 S.E.2d ... 424) (2019) (punctuation omitted) ... We ... recognize that Mobley did ... ...