Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Oxendine v. Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 22, 2017No. A17A0242Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcFADDEN, Presiding Judge

I agree that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, so I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion. But I would hold that the superior court is authorized, on the record before us and in the exercise of his discretion, to hold that a final agency decision would not provide Oxendine an adequate remedy and so that Oxendine is entitled to interlocutory review under OCGA § 50-13-19 (a). So I respectfully dissent from Divisions 2 and 3. I would vacate and remand with instructions so the superior court can exercise that discretion.

OCGA § 50-13-19 (a) authorizes, under certain circumstances,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. North Fulton Medical Center, Inc. v. StephensonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
  2. Wills v. Composite State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  3. Schlachter v. Georgia State Board of Examiners of PsychologistsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API