Thomas v. Madison County Board of Commissioners

404 S.E.2d 271, 261 Ga. 265, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 242
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 23, 1991
DocketS91A0230
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 404 S.E.2d 271 (Thomas v. Madison County Board of Commissioners) 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
Thomas v. Madison County Board of Commissioners, 404 S.E.2d 271, 261 Ga. 265, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 242 (Ga. 1991).

Opinion

Fletcher, Justice.

Appellants are the local chapter of a veterans’ organization and [266]*266the chairman of that organization’s board of directors. Appellants applied to the Madison County Board of Commissioners, (“board”), for a license to serve beer at the meeting place of the local chapter. The board heard the license application on January 23, 1990 and, by letter dated January 29, 1990, informed appellants that their application “was turned down under Section VIII of the Madison County Beer, Wine and Malt Beverage Ordinance in the public interest because of the close proximity of residences to the clubhouse. . . .”

Decided May 23, 1991. Walter B. Harvey, for appellants. Dale Perry, for appellees.

Because the local ordinance does not contain any restrictions concerning proximity of a licensed location to residences, appellants attempted to negotiate with the board concerning the denial. During the negotiations, appellants were told by a board representative that it would be useless to seek a hearing1 before the board concerning the denial because the board’s decision would not change. Based upon such information, appellants decided to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Madison County Superior Court seeking to compel the board to issue the license rather than proceed any further with the board.

The superior court denied the petition for several reasons, one of which was that all administrative remedies had not been exhausted. We agree that all administrative remedies were not exhausted and, for that reason, find that mandamus was properly denied.

While it appears from the record that appellants did make a timely request for a hearing before the board, it is not clear whether appellants abandoned or waived the right to such hearing. We remand this case to the trial court for a determination of these issues. If the trial court finds that a hearing was timely requested and that appellants have not abandoned or waived their right to such a hearing, appellants would then be entitled to an expeditious hearing before the board as provided for by the local ordinance and as required by OCGA § 3-3-2 (b) (3).

Remanded.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Van Detta v. Board to Determine Character & Fitness of Bar Applicants
625 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2006)
She, Inc. v. West
498 S.E.2d 257 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
404 S.E.2d 271, 261 Ga. 265, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-madison-county-board-of-commissioners-ga-1991.