Davis v. Holt, Supreme Court of Georgia — January 18, 1968

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff filed an action in the nature of mandamus against the appellees in the Gwinnett Superior Court. In the trial court the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; the court did not grant or deny the writ of mandamus itself, and after denying the motion the action remained pending in the trial court. The trial record did not show that any question was raised in the trial court as to whether a motion for summary judgment is an available remedy in an action of mandamus.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an appeal may be taken from an interlocutory decision in a mandamus proceeding before there has been a final judgment in the trial court (given the statutory requirement set forth in Ga. L. 1965, p. 18).
2. Whether an order denying summary judgment is subject to review by direct appeal or otherwise absent a trial judge's certification (within ten days) that the order should be subject to review (given the statutory rule set forth in Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 238).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis is concise and strictly statutory. It proceeded in two discrete steps:

1. The court first relied on the statute set out at Ga. L. 1965, p. 18, which the court cited to establish that no appeal may be taken in a mandamus proceeding "until there has been a final judgment in the trial court." Because the present appeal arose from the denial of a motion for summary judgment in a mandamus action and the underlying action remained pending (i.e., there had been no final judgment disposing of the mandamus proceeding), the court concluded that an appeal was not properly taken at that stage.
2. Independently, the court relied on the statute enacted at Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 238, which provides that an order denying summary judgment "is not subject to review by direct appeal or otherwise" unless, within ten days of the order of denial, the trial judge certifies that the denial as to any issue or party should be subject to review. The record in this case did not show such a certificate by the trial judge. Because that statutory precondition for interlocutory appellate review of an order denying summary judgment was not satisfied, review of the denial was not available.

The court therefore concluded that the appeal must be dismissed on the combined bases that (a) appeals in mandamus proceedings are permitted only after final judgment, and (b) the statutory mechanism for interlocutory review of an order denying summary judgment had not been invoked (no trial-judge certification appeared in the record).

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Holding (core ruling): The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the appeal from the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the mandamus action for two statutory reasons: (1) appeals in mandamus proceedings require a final judgment in the trial court (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18); and (2) an order denying summary judgment is not subject to review unless the trial judge timely certifies that the order should be reviewed (Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 238), and no such certification appears in the record.

Direct consequences: The dismissal means the interlocutory denial of summary judgment is not reviewed by this court; the underlying mandamus action remained pending in the trial court, and no writ of mandamus was either granted or denied by the Supreme Court in this opinion. The opinion contains no discussion of broader legal doctrines beyond the statutory bases relied upon, and it does not announce or establish any new precedent beyond applying the cited statutes to the procedural posture of this case.

Other notes from the opinion: The court observed that no question was raised at trial regarding whether summary judgment is an available remedy in a mandamus action. All Justices concurred in the dismissal.