Thibadeau v. Henley

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thibadeau v. Henley

213 S.E.2d 657, 233 Ga. 884, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1472

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 18, 1975

Docket29554

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 S.E.2d 657 (Thibadeau v. Henley) 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

Thibadeau v. Henley, 213 S.E.2d 657, 233 Ga. 884, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1472 (Ga. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The plaintiff below attempts to appeal from the September 20,1974, order of the DeKalb County Superior Court denying his application for leave to file quo warranto inquiring into the rights of defendant to hold office. The notice of appeal was filed October 28, 1974, more than 30 days after entry of the order. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Under Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) (3), appeals may be taken "from all judgments or orders granting or refusing to grant applications for . . . mandamus or other extraordinary remedy. . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy. 25 E. G. L. 261, Quo Warranto, § 4 (1974). Thus, the September 20 order was an appealable judgment under Code Ann. § 6-701. Therefore, contrary to appellant’s contention, the notice of appeal was required by Code Ann. § 6-803 (a) to be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable judgment, and such was not done. The motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely will be granted. Blanton v. Jones, 230 Ga. 866 (199 SE2d 801).

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Per curiam.

The plaintiff below attempts to appeal from the September 20,1974, order of the DeKalb County Superior Court denying his application for leave to file quo warranto inquiring into the rights of defendant to hold office. The notice of appeal was filed October 28, 1974, more than 30 days after entry of the order. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

Under Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) (3), appeals may be taken "from all judgments or orders granting or refusing to grant applications for . . . mandamus or other extraordinary remedy. . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy. 25 E. G. L. 261, Quo Warranto, § 4 (1974). Thus, the September 20 order was an appealable judgment under Code Ann. § 6-701. Therefore, contrary to appellant’s contention, the notice of appeal was required by Code Ann. § 6-803 (a) to be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable judgment, and such was not done. The motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely will be granted. Blanton v. Jones, 230 Ga. 866 (199 SE2d 801).

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.E.2d 657, 233 Ga. 884, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thibadeau-v-henley-ga-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack