GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Allen
299 Ga. 716
| Ga. | 2016Background
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, a nonprofit focused on self-defense and gun-law advocacy, sought leave to file a quo warranto information challenging the right of members of the Georgia Code Revision Commission to hold office.
- The Fulton County Superior Court denied the application, concluding GeorgiaCarry lacked standing; GeorgiaCarry appealed.
- OCGA § 9-6-60 authorizes a writ of quo warranto when applied for by “some person either claiming the office or interested therein.” The Court analyzed whether GeorgiaCarry qualifies as such a “person.”
- The Commission’s role is limited to selecting a publisher and overseeing revision/codification of the Georgia Code (OCGA § 28-9-3); it does not change substantive legislation.
- GeorgiaCarry argued organizational and associational standing, asserting its members (citizen-taxpayers) are injured by alleged miscoding of statutes; its executive director offered generalized testimony about codification errors affecting the group’s interests.
- The Supreme Court held GeorgiaCarry lacked both individual standing as a “person” under OCGA § 9-6-60 and associational standing on behalf of its members, and thus affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonprofit corporation is a “person” under OCGA § 9-6-60 entitled to bring quo warranto | GeorgiaCarry: as a corporate “person” it may pursue quo warranto to challenge officials who affect its interests | Commission: quo warranto is for natural persons who can claim or be otherwise interested in public office; corporations not intended | Held: nonprofit corporation is not an authorized “person” under § 9-6-60 to pursue quo warranto |
| Whether GeorgiaCarry has associational standing to bring quo warranto on behalf of its members | GeorgiaCarry: its citizen-taxpayer members would have standing; the suit is germane to its mission of protecting members’ interests in proper codification | Commission: GeorgiaCarry must show interests are germane and satisfy associational-standing tests | Held: two associational factors satisfied (members could have standing; individual participation not required), but GeorgiaCarry failed to show interests are germane to its stated purpose; associational standing denied |
| Whether generalized testimony about codification errors suffices to show germane organizational interest | GeorgiaCarry: executive director’s testimony that codification errors harm advocacy suffices | Commission: testimony was conclusory and record lacks connection between Commission’s codification work and GeorgiaCarry’s core purposes | Held: testimony insufficient; record does not establish a germane connection |
| Whether quo warranto may be used to challenge Commission membership on the record presented | GeorgiaCarry: quo warranto is an appropriate vehicle to challenge the Commission members’ right to hold office | Commission: statutory and historical context limits quo warranto applicants to natural persons or interested citizens/taxpayers | Held: quo warranto relief not available to GeorgiaCarry under the statute or on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Phillips, 285 Ga. 385 (writ of quo warranto is an extraordinary statutory remedy)
- Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189 (statutory construction principles: plain meaning and legislative intent)
- White v. Miller, 235 Ga. 192 (interested citizen or taxpayer may institute quo warranto)
- Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 973 (citizen taxpayer standing to seek vacancy by quo warranto)
- Atlanta Taxicab Co. Owners Assn. v. City of Atlanta, 281 Ga. 342 (associational standing requirements)
- Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Comm., 244 Ga. 325 (describing Commission’s role in code revision)
- Ga. R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 180 Ga. 4 (corporations not included in statutory "persons" absent legislative intent)