Tri-State Bldg. & Supply, Inc. v. Reid
| Decision Date | 12 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | TRI-STATE,No. 39781,39781 |
| Citation | 302 S.E.2d 566,251 Ga. 38 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUILDING & SUPPLY, INC. v. Barry W. REID, Administrator, Office of Consumer Affairs. |
James A. White, Jr., Bischoff, White & Archer, P.C., Fayetteville, for Tri-State Bldg. & Supply, Inc.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Michael S. Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for Barry W. Reid, Administrator, Office of Consumer Affairs.
Pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-403(a) (Code Ann. § 106-1213), Barry W. Reid, the Administrator of the Office of Consumer Affairs, issued an administrative subpoena or investigative demand to Tri-State Building & Supply, Inc., requesting the production of certain information and documents. Tri-State responded by filing an action to quash the demand pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-403(c) (Code Ann. § 106-1213). The trial court granted the Administrator's motion for summary judgment, and Tri-State filed this appeal. The Administrator has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Tri-State asserts that jurisdiction over this appeal lies in this court because it challenged the constitutionality of a state statute before the trial court and is appealing the trial court's adverse ruling. Pretermitting any issue as to whether that challenge is adequately presented to raise a constitutional issue, we agree that jurisdiction of the appeal lies in this court.
We next consider the Administrator's motion to dismiss the appeal. The Administrator first contends that the administrative proceeding has not been concluded and thus the judgment is not final. See OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1) (Code Ann. § 6-701). However, the plaintiff's complaint for an order setting aside or modifying the investigative demand, OCGA § 10-1-403(c) (Code Ann. § 106-1213), supra, has been terminated by the grant of the Administrator's motion for summary judgment. Hence, the judgment upon this statutory complaint is final and therefore is appealable.
The Administrator also moves to dismiss the appeal on the basis that this is an appeal from a decision of the superior court reviewing a decision of a state administrative agency and no application to appeal as required by OCGA § 5-6-35 (Code Ann. § 6-701.1) has been made. Tri-State argues that the issuance of an investigative demand is not a "decision" of an administrative agency within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35(a) (Code Ann. § 6-701.1(a)), in that no "decision" on the merits has been made by the agency. We disagree.
By providing for a complaint for an order modifying or setting aside an investigative demand, OCGA § 10-1-403(c) (Code Ann. § 106-1213), supra, the General Assembly has provided for review by the superior courts of the issuance of such investigative demands. For us to conclude that, following ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Int'l Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc.
...any indication that the decisional process at the agency implicated formal adjudicative procedures. In Tri–State Bldg. & Supply, Inc. v. Reid , 251 Ga. 38, 302 S.E.2d 566 (1983), we considered an appeal from a decision of a superior court on a motion to quash an administrative subpoena issu......
-
Hair Restoration Specialists, Inc. v. State
...an investigative demand is a decision of an administrative agency within the meaning of OCGA § 5–6–35(a)." Tri–State Bldg. & Supply v. Reid , 251 Ga. 38, 39, 302 S.E.2d 566 (1983). Hair Restoration argues that, as a consequence of subsequent legislation transferring responsibility for admin......
-
Ray v. Barber
...("it is not presumed that the legislature intended that any part would be without meaning"). 4. See Tri-State Building & Supply, Inc. v. Reid, 251 Ga. 38, 39, 302 S.E.2d 566 (1983). 5. OCGA § 42-12-2; Scruggs v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588, 408 S.E.2d 103 ...
-
Georgia Water Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor
...452, 305 S.E.2d 187 (1983); Hogan v. Taylor County Bd. of Education, 157 Ga.App. 680, 278 S.E.2d 106 (1981); Tri-State Bldg. & C. Co. v. Reid, 251 Ga. 38, 302 S.E.2d 566 (1983); Wheeler v. Strickland, 248 Ga. 85, 281 S.E.2d 556 (1981). Compare Green v. Tanner, 186 Ga.App. 715, 716, 368 S.E.......