Court Opinion

ID: 9620843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:48:40.664462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:55.330076
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee contends that the issue upon which our opinion is based is controlled by Hunnicutt v. Hunnicutt, 248 Ga. 516 (1) (283 SE2d 891) (1981), which would require an opposite result. To the contrary. Hunnicutt had been considered and analyzed previously. The facts there differ to the extent at least that the motion was filed on the morning of the hearing and was the first time the party gave notice to the court of his claim of disqualification.
In the instant case the appellant avers that it took its complaint to the judge shortly after it completed its factual research to support its position as to the assignment of cases. After discussion the judge indicated that the matter would be taken up at the next judges’ meet*46ing. Apparently counsel were not notified of any action being taken thereafter with respect to the cases already assigned, in that they remained as originally assigned. Consequently they filed a formal motion in January 1985 and asked for an evidentiary hearing. The trial did not commence until November 1986, so it was not imminent when the motion was filed.
Decided October 14, 1988 —
Rehearing denied October 27, 1988.
Burt DeRieux, Eileen M. Crowley, Cathleen M. Devlin, William F. Hinesley III, for appellant.
Billy E. Moore, John W. Jones, Paul Bennett, for appellee.
Although ex parte communications with the judge assigned to a case are generally forbidden, that factor does not affect the question of timeliness.
Considering the nature and magnitude of the defendant’s allegations, the context thereof, and the actions defendant took, it was error to conclude that the motion was untimely, as we have said before.