Rivera v. Washington
298 Ga. 770
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Two separate cases: Rivera v. Washington (probation officer sued for swearing out an allegedly wrongful arrest warrant) and Forsyth County v. Appelrouth (county sued over alleged drainage/road actions causing property damage).
- In both cases defendants moved to dismiss based on immunity (quasi-judicial or sovereign); trial courts denied the motions, leaving the cases pending.
- Defendants did not seek interlocutory review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b); instead they filed direct appeals relying on the collateral order doctrine as applied by the Court of Appeals in Board of Regents v. Canas.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed both direct appeals, finding the collateral order doctrine did not apply because trial courts made no conclusive immunity determinations.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, concluded the Court of Appeals reached correct results but via flawed analysis, overruled Canas to the extent it applied the collateral order doctrine to immunity denials, and affirmed the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an interlocutory denial of immunity (sovereign/quasi-judicial/qualified) is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Rivera/Forsyth: direct appeal permitted under collateral order as in Canas | Appellants: denial of immunity is effectively final and separable; direct appeal proper | No. Denials are interlocutory and not within the collateral order doctrine; appeals must follow OCGA § 5-6-34(b) interlocutory procedures |
| Whether Canas correctly allowed direct appeals from immunity-denial orders | N/A (Canas relied on federal practice) | N/A (defendants relied on Canas precedent) | Canas was wrongly decided on this point and is overruled to the extent it permits collateral-order direct appeals of immunity denials; Turner and state law control |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875 (adopted collateral order doctrine for certain interlocutory rulings)
- Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430 (applied collateral order doctrine to lis pendens cancellation)
- Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 (denial of qualified-immunity plea not directly appealable; must use OCGA § 5-6-34(b))
- State v. Cash, 298 Ga. 90 (discussing narrow scope of collateral order doctrine)
- Board of Regents v. Canas, 295 Ga. App. 505 (Court of Appeals decision applying collateral order doctrine to immunity — overruled here to that extent)
- Cameron v. Lang, 274 Ga. 122 (discussion of addressing immunity early; distinguished from direct-appeal rule)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (federal qualified immunity treated as entitlement not to stand trial; federal rule noted but Georgia law differs)