Opinion ID: 2510099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Possible Grounds for this Court's Jurisdiction

Text: Nor does any other basis for this Court's jurisdiction over this appeal appear to exist. The constitutional issues that Cook seeks to raise on the merits were not raised and distinctly ruled on in the trial court and therefore provide no basis for our jurisdiction. See In the Interest of K.R.S., 284 Ga. 853, 853, 672 S.E.2d 622 (2009). This appeal involves no issue of equity, even if Cook requested equitable relief in the trial court, see Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Assn., 271 Ga. 745, 747, 524 S.E.2d 464 (1999), and his motion for declaratory relief does not give this Court jurisdiction, see Atlantic States Constr. v. Beavers, 250 Ga. 828, 828, 301 S.E.2d 635 (1983). Contrary to Cook's contention, appellate jurisdiction cannot be based simply on public policy, although if this case is later deemed to be of gravity or great public importance, this Court may review it by certiorari after the Court of Appeals decides it in the first instance. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. V. Finally, this Court's granting of a discretionary appeal does not necessarily establish that we have jurisdiction, particularly when, as occurred here, the issue of jurisdiction is specifically reserved for the parties and the Court to address in the appeal. 3. For these reasons, we transfer this case to the Court of Appeals. That is the proper appellate court to address the merits of Cook's properly presented claims, as to which we express no opinion. We recognize that this process may delay the resolution of this particular appeal, but we hope that our discussion of the scope of this Court's election contest jurisdiction will provide guidance for litigants in future cases as to which appellate court their appeals should be directed. Transferred to the Court of Appeals.