Ledford v. J. M. Muse Corp., 24862
| Decision Date | 24 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24862,24862 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 617,163 S.E.2d 815 |
| Parties | Lester LEDFORD v. J. M. MUSE CORPORATION. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John D. Edge, Calhoun, for appellant.
Woodruff, Savell, Lane & Williams, John M. Williams, Ronald L. Davis, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Jurisdiction of this court of this appeal from the grant of a summary judgment adverse to the appellant is predicated upon a constitutional question being involved. However, no such question is presented for decision.
It is well settled that 'In order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a 'law', at least three things must be shown: (1) the statute or the particular part or parts of the statute which the party would challenge must be stated or pointed out with fair precision; (2) the provision of the Constitution, which it is claimed has been violated must be clearly designated; and (3) it must be shown wherein the statute, or some designated part of it, violates such constitutional provision.' Richmond Concrete Products Co., Inc. v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773, 774, 95 S.E.2d 677, 678. The Court of Appeals, not this court, has jurisdiction where mere application of provisions of the Constitution is involved. Robinson v. State, 209 Ga. 48, 49, 70 S.E.2d 514.
Here, the statute complained of is not properly identified. The complaint refers to it merely as 'Workmen's Compensation Act,' 'Workmen's Compensation of Georgia,' 'Georgia Workman's Compensation Act as amended,' and the like. See Adams v. Ray, 215 Ga. 656, 659, 113 S.E.2d 100. Furthermore, the attempted attacks on such Act either (1) assert that it violates a constitutional provision, but without specifying wherein it does so; (2) urge that it does not comply with certain Code sections; or (3) complain of the administration, construction, application or enforcement of the Act. None of these charges raises a constitutional question of which this court has jurisdiction. Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV; Code Ann. § 2-3704.
The case is therefore.
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. Gates, S03A1305.
...as allegedly unconstitutional, and argues only that interspousal tort immunity is unconstitutional as applied. Ledford v. J.M. Muse Corp., 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815 (1968). Moreover, the trial court's order does not contain any ruling on any constitutional issue. New v. Hubbard, 206 Ga.Ap......
-
North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.
...154, 91 S.E.2d 21; Pate v. Brock, 212 Ga. 812, 96 S.E.2d 253; Prince v. Thompson, 215 Ga. 860, 861, 113 S.E.2d 772; Ledford v. J. M. Muse, Corp., 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815; Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653, 171 S.E.2d 124. See also Walker, bnf. v. Hall, 226 Ga. 68,......
-
Lane v. Morrison
...198; Williams v. State, 217 Ga. 312, 314, 122 S.E.2d 229; Clark v. Liberty Loan Corp., 223 Ga. 351, 155 S.E.2d 19; Ledford v. J. M. Muse Corp., 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815. The constitutional attack in the present case failed to state wherein the statute is discriminatory, in violation of t......
-
Turk v. State Highway Dept., 25616
...constitutional provision.' Richmond Concrete Products Co. Inc., v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773, 774, 95 S.E.2d 677, 678.' Ledford v. J. M. Muse Corporation, 224 Ga. 617, 163 S.E.2d 815. The attack on the statute contained in paragraph 4 of the condemnee's response, above quoted, refers to 'the limiti......