Howell v. Harden
| Decision Date | 08 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28220,28220 |
| Citation | 231 Ga. 594,203 S.E.2d 206 |
| Parties | Annie R. HOWELL v. Richard M. HARDEN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kenneth G. Levin, Atlanta, for appellant.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Timothy J. Sweeney, Dorothy Y. Kirkley, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case came to this court on certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings and an order denying a motion for summary judgment were inappropriate in a judicial review of an administrative decision and that the order of the reviewing superior court remanding the case to the agency was not such a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken to the Court of Appeals. Howell v. Harden, 129 Ga.App. 200, § 198 S.E.2d 890. We granted certiorari to review these rulings. Held:
1. The first question we have for decision is whether the judicial review provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (Code Ann. § 3A-120; Ga.L. 1964, pp. 338, 354) is governed by the provisions of the Civil Practice Act of 1966 (Code Ann. Ch. 81A; Ga.L.1966, p. 609).
Code Ann. § 3A-120(a) provides that any person who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review.
Code Ann. § 3A-120(g) provides:
Code Ann. § 3A-120(g) directs that the judicial review shall be conducted by the superior court without a jury and is confined to the record made before the agency. This section also provides for submission of proof to the reviewing court in cases of alleged irregularities in procedure before the agency. It is apparent therefore that the judicial review contemplated is appellate in nature and is not such a 'pretrial, trial or post trial procedure' as is provided for by the Civil Practice Act (Ga.L.1966, p. 609; Code Ann. Ch. 81A).
2. The trial court remanded this case to the agency for 'further consideration and the reception of additional evidence by the petitioner, if she desires to submit such evidence, so that the application in consideration of her claim shall be reconsidered' and directed the agency to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Code Ann. § 3A-118. Is such a judgment one which may be appealed to the appellate courts? We think not.
Code Ann. § 3A-120(f) clearly provides that the 'agency may modify its findings and decision by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court.' Therefore the reviewing superior court does not lose jurisdiction of the case on remand to the agency but it retains jurisdiction under Code Ann. § 3A-120(f). It follows that the remand order under the circumstances of this case is not such a final judgment as can be appealed to the appellate courts.
3. Code Ann. § 6-701(a) which is a part of the Appellate Practice Act provides that appeals may be taken to the appellate courts from judgments and rulings of the superior courts ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque
...may have relied on the fact that the trial court retained jurisdiction while the matter was remanded to the agency, Howell v. Harden, 231 Ga. 594, 203 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1974); Doyle v. City of Crystal Lake, 183 Ill.App.3d 405, 132 Ill.Dec. 233, 237, 539 N.E.2d 796, 800 (Ill.App.Ct.1989); cf.......
-
Iowa Bankers Ass'n v. Iowa Credit Union Dept.
...N.W.2d 917, 923 (1977); see Howell v. Harden, 129 Ga.App. 200, 201, 198 S.E.2d 890, 891 (1973), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 231 Ga. 594, 203 S.E.2d 206 (1974); Markham v. Swails, 29 N.C.App. 205, 208, 223 S.E.2d 920, 922, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 290 N.C. 309, 225 S.E.2d 829, ce......
-
Hawn v. Chastain
...Ga. 733, 256 S.E.2d 461 (1979); Lake Spivey Parks, Inc. v. Jones, 118 Ga.App. 60, 162 S.E.2d 801 (1968).5 Compare Howell v. Harden, 231 Ga. 594(1), 203 S.E.2d 206 (1974).6 As stated in Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2369 (1971), regarding Rule 41(b): "Dismissal for......
-
Rogers v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors
...county tax assessment ... is a 'complaint' as contemplated by the Civil Practice Act ..." However, we must disagree. Howell v. Harden, 231 Ga. 594(1), 203 S.E.2d 206 (1974). The requisites for the notice of appeal in a tax assessment case are set forth in Code Ann. § 91A-1449(f)(2). The req......
-
Administrative Law - Mark H. Cohen and David C. Will
...595-96 (1998). 120. 236 Ga. App. 59, 510 S.E.2d 618 (1999). 121. Id. at 59, 510 S.E.2d at 619. 122. Id. 123. See, e.g., Howell v. Harden, 231 Ga. 594, 595, 203 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1974); State Health Planning Review Bd. v. Piedmont Hosp., Inc., 173 Ga. App. 450, 451, 326 S.E.2d 814, 815 (1985)......
-
City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons: the Interplay Between Supplemental Jurisdiction and Cross-system Appeals, and the Impact on Federalism - Jacob Edward Daly
...Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 123 S.W.2d 322, 328 (Tex. 1938)). 62. Id. at 355. 63. Id. at 354. 64. Id. at 354-55. See.e.g., Howell v. Harden, 203 S.E.2d 206, 207 (Ga. 1974) (holding that "the judicial review contemplated [by the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act] is appellate in nature and is ......