Oduok v. Bowden

Supreme Court of Georgia

Oduok v. Bowden

535 S.E.2d 241, 272 Ga. 778, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3579, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 628

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

DocketS00A0670

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 535 S.E.2d 241 (Oduok v. Bowden) 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

Oduok v. Bowden, 535 S.E.2d 241, 272 Ga. 778, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3579, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 628 (Ga. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Sears, Justice.

The appellant, Inyang Peter Oduok, appeals from an adverse ruling on his petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. In that petition, Oduok raised numerous issues concerning his pending criminal prosecution, and sought, among other things, the dismissal of the prosecution. Because Oduok has an adequate remedy at law — his pending criminal trial and any appeal therefrom if he is convicted — in which to raise the issues he raised in his petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, the trial court properly denied that petition.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., not participating. [779]*779Decided September 11, 2000 Reconsideration denied September 29, 2000. Inyang R Oduok, pro se. Jonathan A. Weintraub, Joan R. Roach, Howard W. Indermark, for appellees.

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

Sears, Justice.

The appellant, Inyang Peter Oduok, appeals from an adverse ruling on his petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. In that petition, Oduok raised numerous issues concerning his pending criminal prosecution, and sought, among other things, the dismissal of the prosecution. Because Oduok has an adequate remedy at law — his pending criminal trial and any appeal therefrom if he is convicted — in which to raise the issues he raised in his petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, the trial court properly denied that petition.¹ Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., not participating. [779]*779Decided September 11, 2000 Reconsideration denied September 29, 2000. Inyang R Oduok, pro se. Jonathan A. Weintraub, Joan R. Roach, Howard W. Indermark, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 S.E.2d 241, 272 Ga. 778, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 3579, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oduok-v-bowden-ga-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack