Hartsfield v. Salem
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Chief Justice.
1. Where the duty of public officers to perform specific acts is clear and well defined and is imposed by law, and when no element of discretion is involved in performance thereof, the writ of mandamus will issue! to compel their performance. Code § 64-101; Hart v. Head, 186 Ga. 823 (199 S. E. 125); Wrightsville Consolidated School District v. Selig Co., 195 Ga. 408 (24 S. E. 2d 306); Harmon v. James, 200 Ga. 742 (38 S. E. 2d 401); Rogers v. Carr, 203 Ga. 594 (47 S. E. 2d 813); Murphy v. Withers, 204 Ga. 60 (48 S. E. 2d 721). But mere.authorization to act is…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Thomas v. RagsdaleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Harmon v. JamesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Hart v. HeadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Wrightsville Consolidated School District v. Selig Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Murphy v. WithersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Common Cause/Georgia v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
- Forsyth County v. WhiteSupreme Court of Georgia · 2000
- Bulloch County v. RitzertSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958
- The Bottle Shop, LLC v. P&J Beverage Corporation D/B/A Forrest Road Package StoreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2018
- Smith v. Pulaski CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.