CATHERINE CORKREN v. DAVID MAYNARD
A24A1812
Ga. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Catherine Corkren, pro se, sued various City of Winder officials alleging violations of Georgia’s Open and Public Meetings Act (OMA) in connection with meetings held in January 2023.
- The key allegations were that the City failed to provide required notice and agenda for meetings, denied public access by holding meetings outside City limits, improperly discussed non-agenda topics, and failed to timely adopt and sufficiently document meeting minutes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in part for Corkren (liability for inadequate notice and agenda), in part for the City (minutes-related claims), and dismissed other claims as time-barred under the OMA’s 90-day statute of limitations.
- On appeal, Corkren challenged these dismissals and summary judgments, particularly contesting the timeliness and substance of her claims.
- The Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of Corkren’s claims regarding discussion of non-agenda topics and untimely adoption of minutes, finding these were not time-barred, but otherwise affirmed the lower court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Motion to Dismiss | Motion untimely after summary judgment filed | Statute of limitations can be raised any time | Motion was timely under procedural rules |
| Statute of Limitations—January Meeting Claims | Claims not time-barred; discovery date is later | Claims accrued Jan 12, 2023, so time-barred | Most claims were time-barred except two specifically |
| Statute of Limitations—Non-Agenda/Minutes Claims | Learned of violations post-meeting (Feb 7, 2023) | Should have known earlier | Not time-barred as alleged; dismissal reversed |
| Sufficiency of Minutes for Executive Sessions | OMA requires names of those in session listed | Only requires names at vote to enter session | Minutes satisfied OMA; summary judgment for City |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardinale v. Westmoreland, 367 Ga. App. 267 (clarifies summary judgment and statutory construction standards)
- Tisdale v. City of Cumming, 326 Ga. App. 19 (applies OMA’s 90-day statute of limitations)
- Harrison v. McAfee, 338 Ga. App. 393 (standards for determining statute of limitations as law/fact)
- Brown v. Coast Dental of Ga., 275 Ga. App. 761 (burden on defendants to prove statute of limitation)
- Ezeoke v. Fia Card Svcs., N. A., 320 Ga. App. 73 (pleading standards on motions to dismiss based on affirmative defense)