In a decision today in Murphy v. Bajjani http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s06g1483.pdf , the GA Sup Ct has delved into issues relevant to the GCO lawsuits against probate judges. From the decision: We agree with the Court of Appeals that, as a rule of statutory construction, â€œâ€˜hallâ€™ is generally construed as a word of mandatory import.â€ Oâ€™Donnell v. Durham, 275 Ga. 860 (3) (573 SE2d 23) (2002). However, we disagree that a statutorily-mandated action is the equivalent of a ministerial act that deprives the actor of official immunity if done negligently. Good news/bad news. The Sup Ct seems to be able to read 'shall' as a common man would and reaffirm that precedent. That's good news. However, they go out of their way to provide immunity to school officials by looking at sub-categories of 'ministerial' acts. They rely heavily on Leake I and Leake II to describe a ministerial act for which one might be liable as a public official as: A ministerial act is commonly one that is simple, absolute, and definite, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and requiring merely the execution of a specific duty. Thus my fear is that the Sup Ct. will decide that adjudicating one's moral character or navigating the firearms laws is not simple or absolute and thus probate judges are not liable for any costs. Admittedly, this post may be of interest to only the really nerdy people.