Court Opinion

ID: 9848878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:29:12.152556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:51.636051
License: Public Domain

Hines, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, as I believe this case must be transferred to the Court of Appeals.
It is this Court’s duty to raise and resolve questions of its jurisdiction whenever there is any doubt concerning whether such jurisdiction exists. Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Agan asserts that this Court rather than the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction because he seeks equitable relief. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (2). However, the relief sought does not control which appellate court has jurisdiction; appellate equity jurisdic*544tion is determined by the primary issue raised on appeal, and if there is no substantive issue regarding the propriety of equitable relief granted or rejected, the appeal does not lie in this Court. Warren v. Board of Regents, 272 Ga. 142 (527 SE2d 563) (2000). Here, the trial court denied a preliminary injunction, but that decision was clearly ancillary to the court’s determination that Agan did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of OCGA § 7-1-1004 (e), and the denial of the injunction therefore does not serve as a basis for this Court’s equity jurisdiction. See Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Assn., 271 Ga. 745, 748 (2) (524 SE2d 464) (1999); Pittman v. Harbin Clinic Prof. Assn., 263 Ga. 66 (428 SE2d 328) (1993). As the grant or denial of equitable relief is not presented as a matter for appellate review, this appeal is not within this Court’s equity jurisdiction.
Decided July 5, 2000.
Meadows, Ichter & Trigg, Michael J. Bowers, T. Joshua R. Archer, for appellant.
Nor is this case within this Court’s jurisdiction over “cases in which the constitutionality of a law . . . has been drawn in question.” Ga. Const, of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II (1). “[T]his Court does not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a case where the constitutional issue asserted on appeal has not been raised in and ruled upon by the trial court. Senase v. State, 258 Ga. 592 (372 SE2d 813) (1988).” Atlanta Indep. School Sys. v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657, 658 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996). While Agan has asserted that OCGA § 7-1-1004 (e) is unconstitutional, the trial court did not reach that issue and there is no ruling on the matter for this Court to review. “[W]e will not rule on a constitutional question unless it clearly appears in the record that the trial court distinctly ruled on the point [cit.]. . . .” Santana v. Ga. Power Co., 269 Ga. 127, 129 (6) (498 SE2d 521) (1998). See also Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157, 158 (1) (a) (91 SE2d 16) (1955). For a party to include in pleadings a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute which that party has no standing to challenge does not create an “issue” of the constitutionality of the statute, and a ruling that the party lacks standing serves as no basis for review under this Court’s jurisdiction over cases in which the constitutionality of a statute has been called into question. See Warren, supra at 144. See also In the Interest of I. B., 219 Ga. App. 268 (464 SE2d 865) (1995) (Appeal was properly transferred to the Court of Appeals when the trial court had determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge a statute because its application to him had become moot.).
As this case does not present any basis for appellate jurisdiction in this Court, it must be transferred to the Court of Appeals.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears joins in this dissent.
*545Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Daniel M. Formby, John B. Ballard, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, Oscar B. Fears III, William W. Banks, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.