Gathercoal v. Purcell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gathercoal v. Purcell

517 S.E.2d 780, 271 Ga. 26, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1755, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 373

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1999

DocketS99A0050; S99X0053; S99X0054

StatusPublished

This text of 517 S.E.2d 780 (Gathercoal v. Purcell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gathercoal v. Purcell, 517 S.E.2d 780, 271 Ga. 26, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1755, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 373 (Ga. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Alan Gathercoal appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus to have his name placed on the ballot as an independent candidate for district 2 of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners. Because the elections board correctly disqualified signatures that appeared on pages notarized by a circulator, we affirm.

1. The elections board found that 3,344 of the 4,511 signatures on Gathercoal’s petition were on pages that were notarized by a circulator in violation of Poppell v. Lanier.1 Gathercoal contends that Poppell is distinguishable because the disqualified notary circulated a page of the petition after she had notarized other pages. However, Poppell makes no such distinction based upon the time at which the notary circulated the petition.

[27]*27Decided May 3, 1999. Peevy & Lancaster, Donn M. Peevy, Gregory W. Lancaster, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, George T. Smith, for Gathercoal. Chandler & Britt, Walter M. Britt, Deborah F. Weiss, Troutman Sanders, Charles F. Palmer, Norman L. Underwood, for Purcell and Muise. Emily M. Lewy, amicus curiae.

2. We recently reaffirmed Poppell in Lewy v. Beazley.2 The rule set forth in Poppell is clear and easily administered. Therefore, we decline the invitation to overrule it.

3. The errors raised by the cross-appeals are moot and need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Alan Gathercoal appeals the denial of his petition for mandamus to have his name placed on the ballot as an independent candidate for district 2 of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners. Because the elections board correctly disqualified signatures that appeared on pages notarized by a circulator, we affirm.

1. The elections board found that 3,344 of the 4,511 signatures on Gathercoal’s petition were on pages that were notarized by a circulator in violation of Poppell v. Lanier.1 Gathercoal contends that Poppell is distinguishable because the disqualified notary circulated a page of the petition after she had notarized other pages. However, Poppell makes no such distinction based upon the time at which the notary circulated the petition.

[27]*27Decided May 3, 1999. Peevy & Lancaster, Donn M. Peevy, Gregory W. Lancaster, Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, George T. Smith, for Gathercoal. Chandler & Britt, Walter M. Britt, Deborah F. Weiss, Troutman Sanders, Charles F. Palmer, Norman L. Underwood, for Purcell and Muise. Emily M. Lewy, amicus curiae.

2. We recently reaffirmed Poppell in Lewy v. Beazley.2 The rule set forth in Poppell is clear and easily administered. Therefore, we decline the invitation to overrule it.

3. The errors raised by the cross-appeals are moot and need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 S.E.2d 780, 271 Ga. 26, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1755, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gathercoal-v-purcell-ga-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack