Georgia's Constitutional Scheme for State Appellate Jurisdiction

• Citation: Vol. 6 No. 4 Pg. 0003
• Pages: 0003
• Publication year: 2001

Georgia Bar Journal Volume 6.

GSB Vol. 6, No. 4, Pg. 3. Georgia's Constitutional Scheme For State Appellate Jurisdiction

Georgia State Bar Journal
Vol. 6, No. 4, February 2001

"Georgia's Constitutional Scheme For State Appellate Jurisdiction"

By Simon J. Weinstein

The Georgia Constitution establishes the respective jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court and Georgia Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court is given exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the following cases: 1. All cases involving the construction of a treaty or of the Constitution of the State of Georgia or of the United States and all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn in question; and 2 All cases of election contest.1 Unless otherwise provided by law, the Supreme Court is vested with general appellate jurisdiction in all equity and habeas corpus cases in cases involving title to land, wills, extraordinary remedies, divorce and alimony; and in cases in which a death sentence was or could be imposed, as well as all cases certified to it by the Court of Appeals. 2 The Supreme Court also has constitutional jurisdiction to answer any question of law from any state or federal appellate court.3 The Court of Appeals exercises appellate jurisdiction in all cases not reserved to the Supreme Court or conferred on other courts of law.4 This article reviews Georgia Supreme Court decisions interpreting these jurisdictional provisions

Cases Over Which Georgia Supreme Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction

Constitutional questions

Prior to enactment of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction in all cases involving the construction of the state or federal constitutions or of treaties, and "in all cases in which the constitutionality of any law of the State of Georgia or of the United States" was drawn in question.5 Therefore cases involving the constitutionality of a law of another state were not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction,6 nor were cases involving the constitutionality of a local ordinance.7 Under the Georgia Constitution of 1983, a constitutional question is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court if it involves construction of a federal or state constitutional provision or treaty as well as all cases in which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn into question. As a result, challenges to the constitutionality of local ordinances are now within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction,8 as well as issues of constitutionality involving a law of another state. State laws are, however, limited to legislative enactments and do not encompass judicial decisions.9 Numerous circumstances bar adjudication of a constitutional issue on procedural grounds. To be preserved for appellate review, the constitutional issue must have been raised (in the pleadings, by objection to evidence, or in some other appropriate way pending the trial) and ruled upon by the trial court10 . The constitutionality of a law cannot be drawn into question for the first time in a motion for new trial.11 The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must clearly specify the statute and the provision of the constitution alleged to have been violated, and must show wherein the statute violates the constitutional provision.12 To have standing, the party making the constitutional challenge must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures him and deprives him of a constitutional right which he possesses.13 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will exercise jurisdiction over an appeal whenever a question as to the constitutionality of a statute is properly presented, even if the Court determines that a decision upon the constitutional question is unnecessary to the resolution of the case.14 As to matters of substance, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction if the constitutional question presented in the appeal involves construction of some constitutional provision that is doubtful either under its own terms or under the Court's own decisions or those of the Supreme Court of the United States.15 In contrast, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve the application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution to a given set of facts.16 The Court of Appeals thus has jurisdiction if the law previously has been held constitutional against the same attack being made in the case before it.17 For these reasons, the Supreme Court's transfer of a case involving a constitutional issue to the Court of Appeals does not constitute a determination that the issue lacks merit.18

Election contests

Article 13 of the Georgia Election Code19 defines procedures governing election contests. The following primaries and elections are subject to contest under this statute: (1) the nomination of any person who is declared nominated at a primary as a candidate for any federal, state, county, or municipal office; (2) the election of any person who is declared elected to any such office (except when otherwise prescribed by the federal Constitution or the Constitution of Georgia); (3) the eligibility of any person declared eligible to seek any such nomination or office in a run-off primary or election; or (4) the approval or disapproval of any question submitted to electors at an election.20 The Election Code recognizes the need to expedite an election contest on appeal, and appeals involving primary election contests are dismissed as moot if the general election has already taken place.21

Cases Involving Title to Land

Prior to enactment of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, the Supreme Court enjoyed jurisdiction over all cases "respecting title to land."22 Correspondingly, there is a venue provision of the Georgia Constitution requiring such cases to be tried in the county where the land lies.23 Royston v. Royston24 was a suit by an administratrix to obtain a decree for the sale of real property. One of the defendants asserted that the testator did not have any title or interest in the property. The Supreme Court found the venue provision of the Georgia Constitution inapplicable, holding "while it is true to some extent, that the title is involved; still it is incidental only to the main controversy, and the Constitution manifestly refers to cases brought or the purpose of trying the title."25 The Court thus established a guideline that "respecting title" meant having title to land as the central and critical issue. In Elkins v. Merritt,26 the Court held that the jurisdictional provision of the Georgia Constitution should be construed in the same manner as was the venue provision in Royston. Elkins was a statutory processioning proceeding, the object of which is to mark anew existing land lines. In such cases, the question of title is not tried. Elkins thus held that the Court did not have jurisdiction, as the issue of title was not central to the case. Elkins identified actions involving cancellation of deeds, specific performance of contracts for the sale of land, and injunctions against trespasses on realty as examples of other cases in which title is not directly in issue but, at most, only incidentally involved. In contrast, a statutory partition action that can bestow title on both parties and divest both parties of title is a case respecting title to land.27 In the 1951 case of Bond v. Ray,28 the Supreme Court engrafted a limitation onto its jurisdiction over cases respecting title to land absent from the constitutional text by specifying the status of the parties. In Bond, the Court held that, as used in the Constitution, "cases respecting title to land" "refer to and mean actions at law, such as ejectment and statutory substitutes, in which the plaintiff asserts a presently enforceable legal title against the possession of the defendant for the purpose of recovering the land." Bond was a declaratory judgment action by a person in possession of real estate against one of the grantors of the deed under which the plaintiff held possession. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff did not have title to the property because the defendant was insane when the deed was executed. Although the case was brought for the purpose of trying title, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction of the appeal because the defendant was not in possession of the realty. The Georgia Constitution of 1983 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases "involving" title to land rather than "respecting" title to land. As the Court of Appeals has stated, "It would not seem that the word changes reflect an intention to change meaning."29

All Equity Cases

The overwhelming majority of courts in this country including the Georgia Supreme Court, classify a case as legal or equitable for trial purposes based on whether there is asserted a claim for legal or equitable relief.30 If claims for both legal and equitable relief are present,31 the proceeding is generally characterized as sounding in both law and equity.32 Historically, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that if a case contained a prayer for equitable relief, and such relief was either granted or denied, the case was in equity for appellate jurisdictional purposes unless all issues relating to equitable relief had been eliminated at the trial level and the appeal presented questions for decision relating only to the grant of legal relief.33 Classification of declaratory judgment actions proved problematic. Although such proceedings are considered equitable in a number of jurisdictions,34 the Supreme Court in Felton v. Chandler35 characterized actions for declaratory judgment as legal because they are authorized by...