Legal Document

401 U.S. 144 91 Supreme Court Reporter 593 27 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 741 Lelia Mae SANKS et al.v.GEORGIA al. Number 28. Argued Dec. 8, 1969. Reargued Nov. 17—18, 1970. Decided Feb. 23, 1971. Syllabus As a condition precedent to making defense against summary eviction proceeding, Georgia law provided that the tenant post surety bond for double amount due at end of trial, landlord becoming entitled such rent should lose his case. Following Court's upholding statutory scheme over process and equal protection challenges by appellants, indigent tenants seeking contest eviction, appellants left premises their landlords initially sought recover, entirely new legislation was enacted containing neither bondposting nor double-rent requirement. Held: These ensuing developments make it inappropriate this resolve issues originally raised since cannot be determined what extent adjudication those would material any further litigation on remand. Pp. 147—153. 225 Ga. 88, 166 South Eastern Reporter, 2nd 19, appeal dismissed remanded. Michael D. Padnos, Atlanta, Ga., appellants. Alfred L. Evans, Jr., appellees. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 We noted probable jurisdiction in case, 395 974, 89 2150, 23 763 (1969), because judgment appeared raise substantial questions under Fourteenth Amendment were deserving our plenary consideration, whatever conclusion might reach with respect them definitively settle aspect litigation. In brief, upheld, challenges, state compelled both persons who petitions from homes, post, as offering potential trial. The statutes, which also upheld Court, become tenant-appellants cases. 2 case first heard us 1969 Term, thereafter set reargument present Term. 399 922, 90 2229, 26 788 (1970). At became apparent events occurring subsequent notation had so drastically undermined we consideration lead conclude that, regard proper functioning not now adjudicate it. 3 * initiated, Ga.Code Ann. §§ 61—301 61—305 (1966), § 61—306 (Supp. 1969), operated following manner. A could file an affidavit local court, alleging tenant, one or more statutorily enumerated reasons, unlawfully holding possession refused landlord's demand relinquish possession. (§ 61—301.) When been filed judicial officer required issue 'warrant process' sheriff directing him 'deliver owner' described affidavit. 61—302.) give four days' notice before executing dispossessory warrant. 1969).) 4 prevent immediate only filing counter-affidavit, several specified defenses accompanied 'for payment sum, costs, may recovered trial case.' 61—303.) Only if followed these procedures he then affidavits. 61—304.) Against background, provided: 5 'If preceding section shall go reserved stipulated paid, will sufferance, is shown worth *.' 6 us, Sanks Momman served warrants May 21, 1968, July 17, respectively (App. 3, 18), applied 5, 20) eventually obtained 24—39) Civil Fulton County 'rule nisi' permitting remain respective pending resolution factual applications, long they timely paid into court during pendency Both bond-posting requirement 61—303) damages measure 61 305) declared unconstitutional and, hence, inapplicable proceedings. App. 27—39. On interlocutory appeal, court's constitutional declarations aside Georgia, 19 lower reversed. II 7 Since posture has shifted dramatically. Mrs. have removed landlords. addition, General Assembly repealed virtually entire governed its inception replaced one, effective 1, 1970, contains Ga.Laws Pages 968—972, 61—302 1970). Under law, actions still commenced execution Now, however, merely compels cause summoned hearing 302), can retain force wish simply answering affidavit, orally writing, hearing. Expedited trials are encouraged. If concluded within month paying all becomes due, addition but prior issuance summons. (§§ 61—303, 304.) ultimately prevails, monetary damages, any, based actual, double, found due. 61—305.) Similarly, may, effect, stay warrant adverse determination rent, accrues, court. (s 61—306.) III 8 crux controversy appellants' insistence they, alleged landlords, right lawful dispute demands permitted outcome litigation.1 With voluntary removal clearly moot. apprised no basis statutes assuming hold constitutionally proceed without posting bond, seek decree here returning premises. statute spoke enabling already forcible upon bond. Indeed, appellees—all whom resist suggestion whole moot—contend There thus reason believe remand, either appellant, successful litigate, context proceeding conceivably provisions claim put she occupied. 9 support continued justiciability rely subsidiary remains alive. Were affirm merits, presumably remanded accordance mandate. There, argue procured move entry former 61—305. Appellants fear automatically entered construed effectively conceding lack substantive even technically defenses, appellant's ability do conditioned Such result possible number factors coalesce. First, original moving parties, lessors, decide relatively impecunious Second, courts rule request adjudicated statutes. Third, necessary contemplated awarding circumstances (see infra) renders provision. 10 Beyond this, upset fact out, compliance order money registry deposit there. Tr. Oral Rearg., 18, 10—11, 26. 11 reoriented, impossible predict whether presented ensue Whether initiating parties matter wholly beyond control other, existence funds necessitate adversary redistribute so, which, face, remotely speak problem, matters pure conjecture. Because where 'the (is) tenant' (former 61—305) joinder posted 61—304), quite unable say nevertheless language sufficiently elastic permit arrested rather than yet insufficiently flexible simultaneous waiver claim. Nor repeal would, held alter conclusions respecting otherwise adopt context.2 All issues, far appears, impression judiciary. IV 12 Given imponderable legal tangle, involving, does, purely perceive other responsible course decline, stage, presented. rest Conceivably, remand subjected requirements But always fundamental principle dictated very institutional nature obligations, exercise powers review necessity. said versus Petrillo, 332 67 1538, 1541, L.Ed. 1877 (1947), 'We consistently refrained passing constitutionality until involving reached stage decision precise necessity.' Manifestly, plausibly maintained thing about lawsuit clear-cut formerly certainty relevant remaining it, if, fact, remain. 13 Moreover, certain arise below foretell appear. Possibly provision successfully invoked, latter applicable, adjudicate, advance validity precondition resisting normal intended use, contesting only. operative competing considerations, particularly scope State's interest imposing barrier litigation, well significantly different depending principal purposes required. Yet, given debilitated lawsuit, address problem—and know problem ever arise. 14 prudent restraint invoke today nothing new, although, happily, frequently proved dispose appeals basis. Fruehauf, 365 146, 81 547, 476 (1961), provides apt analogy. appealed dismissal indictment brought 302(a) Taft-Hartley Act, Statutes-at-Large 157, made unlawful employer pay deliver, agree value representative employees,' Government pre-trial memorandum concession transaction forming loan did penalize management loaning union officials. This consider construction statute, after oral argument Solicitor represented felt free, prove came particular facts revealed bona fide loan. occurrence decided opaque uncertain being asked render 'advance expression(s) unfocused,' U.S., S.Ct., 554. Accordingly, adjudication. 15 produced similar consequences. focus completely blurred, altogether obliterated, important involved potentially immaterial. instant obviously compelling presents constitutional, statutory, interpretation. 16 Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 331 549, 1409, 1666 declined presenting were, close inspection, intertwined complex problems construing Angeles Code tell precision freedom restrained. So, here, know, double-damages occur, rationale applying be. 17 short, time, appropriate. leave ourselves course, fears adversely affected subsequently confirmed proceedings courts. 18 Georgia. It ordered. 20 Appeal 21 BLACK concurs dismissing does specifically ground not, person evict her. 5. policy disapproving retroactive application 102—104 (1968). However, expressly distinguishes '(l)aws looking remedy mode trial.' fall exception. motion treated as, passage Act.

Classification Label: 8