Hunstein v. McDade

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hunstein v. McDade

480 S.E.2d 192, 267 Ga. 515

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 3, 1977

DocketS96A1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 480 S.E.2d 192 (Hunstein v. McDade) 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

Hunstein v. McDade, 480 S.E.2d 192, 267 Ga. 515 (Ga. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Ralph J. Hunstein seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the Douglas County District Attorney to deliver funds that were seized in 1989 from James E. Query’s bank account and awarded to the state [516]*516in 1993. Hunstein claims that Query assigned the funds to him as payment of attorneys’ fees in a federal criminal case.

Decided February 3, 1977 Reconsideration denied February 21, 1997. Ralph J. Hunstein, pro se. David McDade, District Attorney, William H. McClain, Assistant District Attorney, pro se.

To obtain the right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, the petitioner must show both a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of another adequate remedy. Hunstein has failed to make either showing. His remedy was to file a claim on his own behalf in the state forfeiture action, which he did not do. As a result, he is not an owner or interest holder under the forfeiture statute and does not have a clear legal right to the seized funds. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (a). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of mandamus.

Judgment affirmed.

Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J, Sears, Carley, Thompson, Hines, JJ, and Judge H. Arthur McLane concur. Hun-stein, J., disqualified.

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

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Ralph J. Hunstein seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the Douglas County District Attorney to deliver funds that were seized in 1989 from James E. Query’s bank account and awarded to the state [516]*516in 1993. Hunstein claims that Query assigned the funds to him as payment of attorneys’ fees in a federal criminal case.

Decided February 3, 1977 Reconsideration denied February 21, 1997. Ralph J. Hunstein, pro se. David McDade, District Attorney, William H. McClain, Assistant District Attorney, pro se.

To obtain the right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, the petitioner must show both a clear legal right to the relief sought and the absence of another adequate remedy. Hunstein has failed to make either showing. His remedy was to file a claim on his own behalf in the state forfeiture action, which he did not do. As a result, he is not an owner or interest holder under the forfeiture statute and does not have a clear legal right to the seized funds. See OCGA § 16-13-49 (a). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of mandamus.

Judgment affirmed.

Benham, C. J., Fletcher, P. J, Sears, Carley, Thompson, Hines, JJ, and Judge H. Arthur McLane concur. Hun-stein, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 S.E.2d 192, 267 Ga. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunstein-v-mcdade-ga-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack