HEISKELL Et Al. v. ROBERTS
295 Ga. 795
| Ga. | 2014Background
- Bruce Roberts was appointed by the Governor and sworn in as State Court Judge for Walker County on October 3, 2011, and served until December 31, 2012; the county paid him an annualized $100,000 (15 months total).
- Roberts sued the county and sole commissioner Bebe Heiskell for mandamus, seeking the difference between his pay and the higher salary of his predecessor, arguing the Constitution prevents decreasing an incumbent judge’s salary during the incumbent’s term.
- Appellants (the county and Heiskell) counterclaimed for breach of contract, intentional harms based on Roberts’s dismissal of ~60 traffic cases after losing the 2012 election, and later added a counterclaim seeking reimbursement for alleged salary overpayments (~$50,000).
- The trial court granted Roberts’s mandamus claim, ordered $78,878.55 paid, dismissed Appellants’ counterclaims as barred by judicial immunity, and awarded Roberts attorney fees (partly under Gwinnett County v. Yates and partly under OCGA § 9-15-14).
- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the mandamus judgment, affirmed dismissal of the counterclaims based on judicial immunity (for the case-dismissal-based claims), reversed dismissal of the reimbursement counterclaim (not a judicial act), and limited the attorney-fees award on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Heiskell/County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roberts was entitled to the predecessor’s (Peppers’s) higher salary for the period he served by appointment | Roberts: as an appointee to the vacancy he served the incumbent’s term, so salary could not be decreased | Appellants: appointee serves a new, shortened term under Art. VI, § VII (Par. III–IV); salary protection for incumbents doesn’t apply | Reversed trial court: Roberts served his own 15‑month appointed term and was paid uniformly; no violation of constitutional salary-protection clause |
| Whether counterclaims based on Roberts’s dismissal of traffic cases are barred by judicial immunity | Roberts: dismissals were judicial acts and thus immune | Appellants: claims should proceed (they asserted contract and tort claims) | Affirmed dismissal: judicial immunity bars the dismissal-based breach/tort counterclaims because acts were judicial and within jurisdiction |
| Whether the reimbursement counterclaim (alleged salary overpayments) is barred by judicial immunity | Roberts: immunity should bar all counterclaims in the suit | Appellants: reimbursement is nonjudicial (payroll/administrative) and thus not immune | Reversed dismissal: reimbursement counterclaim is not a judicial act and may proceed |
| Whether Roberts is entitled to attorney fees (Yates and OCGA § 9‑15‑14) | Roberts: entitled to fees for prevailing on mandamus (Yates) and for defending against frivolous counterclaims (OCGA § 9‑15‑14) | Appellants: fees improper because Roberts did not prevail on mandamus and some counterclaims were not frivolous | Mixed: Yates-based fees reversed (Roberts did not prevail on mandamus); § 9‑15‑14 fees mostly sustained for the claims barred by immunity but must be reduced to exclude fees related to the reimbursement counterclaim |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Palmour, 278 Ga. 217 (discusses constitutional scheme for appointed judicial terms and election timing)
- Gwinnett County v. Yates, 265 Ga. 504 (official‑capacity official may recover outside counsel fees when local government cannot/does not provide representation and official prevails)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity: exceptions for nonjudicial acts and acts in complete absence of jurisdiction)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (distinguishes judicial acts from administrative/ministerial acts for immunity analysis)
- Maddox v. Hayes, 278 Ga. 141 (Georgia case recognizing limits of judicial immunity)
- Board of Comrs. of Dougherty County v. Saba, 278 Ga. 176 (success requirement for Yates fee awards)