Tompkins v. Board of Regents

417 S.E.2d 153, 262 Ga. 208, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 606, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 401
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMay 11, 1992
DocketS92A0481
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 417 S.E.2d 153 (Tompkins v. Board of Regents) 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
Tompkins v. Board of Regents, 417 S.E.2d 153, 262 Ga. 208, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 606, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 401 (Ga. 1992).

Opinion

Weltner, Presiding Justice.

This dispute concerns procedures required for review of certain personnel decisions for employees of the University System of Georgia.

The trial court held:

Petitioner alleges that in denying his petition for review, the Board of Regents fails to follow the mandates of Georgia’s Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq specifically OCGA § 50-13-13 which requires a hearing in all contested cases. Respondents contend, among other arguments, that the specific exclusion contained in OCGA § 50-13-2 (6) (H) requires dismissal of this Petition.
The Petition relates to a dispute involving evaluations, reassignment, employment and compensation. OCGA § 50-13-2 (6) (H) excludes from APA coverage “[r]ules which relate to the employment, compensation, tenure, terms, retirement, or regulation of the employees of the state or of an [209]*209agency; . .'.” This Court concludes that the Board of Regents’ policy in dispute in the case sub judice is covered by this exclusion. Thus, even upon a finding of coverage of the Board of Regents under the APA, supra, this action would be specifically excluded. It is unnecessary, therefore, to reach the issue of the Board of Regents’ coverage under the provisions of the APA.
Decided May 11, 1992. McKee & Barge, Patrick W. McKee, Richard H. Barbe, for appellant. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

We agree with the trial court. The denial of the petitions for declaratory judgment and for mandamus are affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Olvera v. University System of Georgia's Board of Regents
782 S.E.2d 436 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2016)
Judicial Complaint, In Re:
216 F.3d 1328 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
Cotton v. Jackson
216 F.3d 1328 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
417 S.E.2d 153, 262 Ga. 208, 92 Fulton County D. Rep. 606, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tompkins-v-board-of-regents-ga-1992.