Legal Opinion
Undercofler v. Scott
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided November 5, 1964No. 22693PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Chief Justice.
The general rule is that a writ of mandamus may issue against officials to compel due performance of official duties. Hart v. Head, 186 Ga. 823 (199 SE 125); Harmon v. James, 200 Ga. 742 (38 SE2d 401). And mandamus lies against an officer to require the performance of a clear legal duty. Lewis v. Gay, 215 Ga. 90 (109 SE2d 268); Lumpkin County v. Davis, 185 Ga. 393 (195 SE 169). Likewise, persons holding public office may be required by mandamus to perform a continuing duty which their predecessors in office either refused or failed to do. Weathers v. Easterling, 153…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Housing Authority v. AyersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
- Scott v. UndercoflerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Weathers v. EasterlingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Harmon v. JamesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Best v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Brown v. City of East PointSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Fulton CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1987
- Fulton County v. LordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
- Smith v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Davis v. GRIFFIN-SPALDING CTY., GA., BD. OF ED.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.