lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al. v. GRIMES, Sheriff, et al.
20529.
HAWKINS, Justice.
Declaratory judgment. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Pye. April 14, 1959.
Beginning with the decision in Gulf Paving Co. v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. 114 (99 S. E. 374), this court has held that, where the question presented for decision requires only an application of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the State or Federal Constitution to a given state of facts, jurisdiction of such cases is in the Court of Appeals, and not in this court, and has therefore transferred such cases to the Court of Appeals. See, in this connection, McGill v. State of Georgia, 209 Ga. 282 (71 S. E. 2d 548); Jackson v. State, 203 Ga. 570 (47 S. E. 2d 588); Gaines v. State, 205 Ga. 210 (52 S. E. 2d 847); Boyett v. State, 205 Ga. 370 (53 S. E. 2d 919); Robinson v. State, 209 Ga. 48 (70 S. E. 2d 514); Suttles v. Hill Crest Cemetery, 209 Ga. 160 (71 S. E. 2d 217); Jones v. Chandler, 209 Ga. 498 (74 S. E. 2d 4); Giles v. State, 212 Ga. 465 (93 S. E. 2d 739); Perkins v. Hattiesburg Brick Work, 212 Ga. 804 (96 S. E. 2d 361), and cases therein cited. The present case comes within that class, and it is
DUCKWORTH, Chief Justice, concurring specially. I am fully convinced that the decisions upon which the opinion rests erroneously construe the Constitution wherein the jurisdiction of this court is fixed. Those decisions and the numerous other decisions hold without qualification that, where the constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction to apply the Constitution to any given state of facts, irrespective of what the facts may be. Until and unless overruled by a decision of this court, concurred in by all the Justices, those decisions are controlling. And since it is impossible at this time to obtain a concurrence of all the Justices to that effect, I have no choice but to follow them, which requires a concurrence in the transfer of the writ of error to the Court of Appeals. I am authorized to state that Justices Head, Candler, and Hawkins join me in this special concurrence.
Harold Sheats, Griffin Patrick, contra.
B. P. Gambrell, Stephens, Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, John E. Dougherty, for plaintiffs in error,
ARGUED JULY 14, 1959 -- DECIDED SEPTEMBER 15, 1959.
Saturday May 23 00:31 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com