Hewes v. Cooler, 67018
| Decision Date | 07 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67018,67018 |
| Citation | 169 Ga.App. 762,315 S.E.2d 276 |
| Parties | HEWES et al. v. COOLER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James B. Blackburn, Stanley E. Harris, Jr., Savannah, for appellants.
David E. Zeigler, Savannah, for appellee.
Thomas Cooler appealed an order of the Savannah Zoning Board of Appeals to the Superior Court of Chatham County, alleging that the Board's decision misconstrued the applicable zoning ordinance, that the Board acted ultra vires, and that he was denied equal protection and due process of law. The Board and other individual defendants moved for summary judgment. This motion was denied by the superior court and we granted the application for interlocutory appeal.
The superior court, in denying appellees' motion for summary judgment, gave as its reason that "there is a genuine issue as to one or more material facts." No such issues of fact exist. It is not the position of the superior court here, as appellate court, to substitute its judgment as to the findings of fact by the Board. Its duty lies, first, in determining whether there is any evidence to support the findings of the Board, Ga. Real Estate Comm. v. Burnette, 243 Ga. 516(2), 255 S.E.2d 38 (1979), and second, in conducting a meaningful review of the proceedings to determine whether the action of the Board was or was not so capricious or arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of the Board's discretion. Hames v. Kusmiersky, 166 Ga.App. 730, 732(2), 305 S.E.2d 377 (1983). Both of these inquiries are matters of legal determination; therefore, we remand this case to the superior court for consideration of the matters of law before it.
The summary judgment motion was correctly overruled by the superior court because the Civil Practice Act has no application to judicial review of administrative agency decisions under § 19 of the Administrative Procedure Act (OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq. (Code. Ann. § 3A-101 et seq.). Motions for summary judgment are therefore "functionless" and are not appropriate in the superior court when that court is sitting as an appellate court under authority of the APA. Walker v. Harden, 129 Ga.App. 782, 201 S.E.2d 483 (1973).
Judgment affirmed and case remanded for action not inconsistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ATLANTA BD. OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT v. Kelly, A99A1436.
...whether there was any evidence to support the findings of the BZA and (2) whether the BZA had abused its discretion. Hewes v. Cooler, 169 Ga.App. 762, 315 S.E.2d 276 (1984). But here, notwithstanding the fact that an appealable decision had been rendered by the BZA, the court imposed judgme......
-
FULTON CTY. BD. v. Saks Fifth Ave.
...Act does not apply to a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act and is not otherwise authorized by law in this matter. See Hewes v. Cooler;4Ga. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. The Board's authority to require production of documents by a taxpayer, other than the on-premise inspec......
-
Department of Medical Assistance of Georgia v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., A90A0184
...that order. Held: 1. The Civil Practice Act has no application to appeals from administrative agency decisions. See Hewes v. Cooler, 169 Ga.App. 762, 315 S.E.2d 276 (1984). Accordingly, the validity of the discovery requests is dependent on whether the declaratory judgment count of the comp......
-
Gladowski v. Department of Family and Children Services, A06A1706.
...process in these reviews is not a trial and the provisions of the Civil Practice Act relating to trial procedures are not applicable"); Hewes v. Cooler5 ("the Civil Practice Act has no application to judicial review of administrative agency decisions under [OCGA § 50-13-19]"). Compare Akin ......