Selke v. Carson, S14A0631.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S14A0631.,S14A0631. |
| Citation | 295 Ga. 628,759 S.E.2d 853 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | SELKE, et al. v. CARSON, et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lawrence J. LoRusso, Rebecca Lynn Sample, Lorusso Law Firm, PC, Atlanta, for appellant.
Kenneth Edward Jarrard, Megan Nicole Martin, Jarrard & Davis, LLP, John Richard Neville, Neville & Cunat, LLP, Cumming, for appellee.
The question for decision in this appeal is whether appellants were required to follow the discretionary appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5–6–35. We hold that they were so required and grant appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal.
Appellants, former Forsyth County deputy sheriffs, were terminated from their employment without notice. The sheriff claimed appellants were terminated due to a reduction in force. Appellants asserted their termination was a subterfuge for political retaliation and age discrimination.
Appellants' jobs were covered by the Forsyth County Civil Service System. The Civil Service Handbook requires the Board “to conduct hearings and appeals and render decisions as to a member of the civil service system who claims to have been improperly demoted, suspended or dismissed.” Hearings are not required due to a reduction in force.
Appellants tendered formal appeals to appellee Carson, the Forsyth County Personnel Services Director, and requested the appeals be forwarded to the Forsyth County Civil Service Board. Carson denied the appeals, on the ground that a layoff is not an appealable event, and refused to forward them to the Board for consideration.
Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus against appellees, Carson, the Board and the County, to compel Carson to forward the appeals to the Board. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the petition and the superior court granted the motion. Thereupon, appellants filed a direct appeal to this Court.
Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting it was incumbent upon appellants to proceed via discretionary application under OCGA § 5–6–35. We agree.
Generally speaking, judgments or orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus are appealable directly. OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(7). However, OCGA § 5–6–35(a)(1) requires an appellant to file an application for a discretionary appeal from a decision of a superior court reviewing the decision of a state or local administrative agency. Thus, if the underlying subject matter of a mandamus petition concerns an administrative ruling which is reviewed by a superior court, a direct appeal will not lie. Ferguson v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, 275 Ga. 255, 257, 564 S.E.2d 715 (2002). And this rule “applies to appeals of local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrow v. Beskin
...the grant or denial of mandamus that would otherwise be immediately appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (7). See Selke v. Carson , 295 Ga. 628, 629, 759 S.E.2d 853 (2014). We have explained, however, that OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applies only to administrative agency decisions that are "adjudic......
-
State v. Int'l Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc.
...appeal to be brought by an application for discretionary review. See 251 Ga. at 39, 302 S.E.2d 566.More recently, in Selke v. Carson , 295 Ga. 628, 759 S.E.2d 853 (2014), we considered an appeal from a decision of a superior court reviewing a decision of a county personnel services director......
-
Carson v. Brown
...appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) because he was appealing the trial court’s review of a local administrative agency’s decision, citing Selke v. Carson .2 We denied the appellees’ motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, Brown and Williams filed their cross-appeal in this Court, which was d......
-
Wolfe v. Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
...for the agency" and invest officers of an agency "with legal authority to make the determination for the agency"); Selke v. Carson, 295 Ga. 628, 629, 759 S.E.2d 853 (2014) (holding that a county personnel director made an agency decision for purposes of § 5-6-35 (a) (1) when she declined to......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...Id. at 690, 824 S.E.2d at 608.186. O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(7).187. Carson, 348 Ga. App. at 692, 824 S.E.2d at 609 (quoting Selke v. Carson, 295 Ga. 628, 629, 759 S.E.2d 853, 854 (2014)).188. 299 Ga. 392, 788 S.E.2d 455 (2016).189. Carson, 348 Ga. App. at 694 & n.19, 824 S.E.2d at 610-11 & n.19......
-
Administrative Law
...S.E.2d at 96.121. . Id.122. Id. (quoting O.C.G.A. § 5-6-35(a)(1)).123. . Id. 124. Id. at 202, 857 S.E.2d at 96 (quoting Selke v. Carson, 295 Ga. 628, 629, 759 S.E.2d 853, 854 (2014)).125. Id. at 202, 857 S.E.2d at 96.126. . Id.127. . Id.128. Id. at 202-03, 857 S.E.2d at 96-97.129. Id. at 20......