McGill v. State, 17930
| Citation | 71 S.E.2d 548,209 Ga. 282 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17930,17930 |
| Parties | McGILL et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Arnold, Gambrell & Arnold, James A. Branch, Atlanta, James Maddox, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Davis, Sol. Gen., Summerville, Robert E. Coker, G. W. Langford, Fariss & Fariss, LaFayette, Shaw & Shaw, LaFayette, Gleason & Painter, Andrew Cain, Jr., Rossville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Honorable H. E. Nichols, Judge of the Superior Court of the Rome Circuit, issued a citation for contempt against W. H. Fields and Ralph McGill, as managing editor and editor, respectively, of the Atlanta Constitution. By demurrer and by answer the respondents contended that an order adjudging the respondents in contempt of court, under the facts set out in the proceeding, would amount to restraining liberty of speech and the press in violation of art. 1, sec. 1, par. 15 of the Constitution of this State, and would be in violation of the due process clause and equal protection clause of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. The demurrers to the citation were overruled and the respondents were held in contempt of court. Relying upon their demurrers and answers, the respondents assert that the assignments of error involve a construction of the Constitution of this State, and of the United States. Held:
A constitutional question within the jurisdiction of this court must either involve a construction of some provision of the Constitution of this State or of the United States, or attack as unconstitutional some law of this State or of the United States. Constitution, art. 6, sec. 2, par. 4, Code Ann. § 2-3704. The demurrers and answers of the respondents do not attack any law of this State or of the United States. The pleaded provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions are unambiguous and are not questioned. An application of unquestioned and unambiguous constitutional provisions to a given state of facts is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Gulf Paving Co. v. City of Atlanta, 149 Ga. 114, 99 S.E. 374; Howell v. State, 153 Ga. 201, 111 S.E. 675; Norman v. State, 171 Ga. 527, 156 S.E. 203; Dennard v. State, 176 Ga. 361, 168 S.E. 310; Thompson v. City of Atlanta, 176 Ga. 489, 168 S.E. 312; Payne v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinkley v. State
...facts of this case, and therefore jurisdiction over those issues is also properly in the Court of Appeals. See McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 282, 282, 71 S.E.2d 548 (1952) (“An application of unquestioned and unambiguous constitutional provisions to a given state of facts is within the jurisdict......
-
Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 19906
...this court in Jarvis v. State, 197 Ga. 704, 30 S.E.2d 484, Franklin v. Mobley, 202 Ga. 212, 42 S.E.2d 755, and McGill v. State of Ga., 209 Ga. 282, 71 S.E.2d 548, paragraph 36 of the motion to dismiss made a question for construction of the constitutional requirement for 'adequate compensat......
-
Zepp v. Mayor & Council of City of Athens
...provision, or an attack upon the constitutionality of some law of this state or the United States (or an ordinance). McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 282, 71 S.E.2d 548 (1952). "The words 'construction of the Constitution,' etc., as thus employed, contemplate construction where the meaning of some ......
-
State v. Walker, 18081
... ... of Ga., 208 Ga. 510, 67 S.E.2d 578; Putnam v. Sewell, 209 Ga. 28, 70 S.E.2d [209 Ga. 524] 462; Jarrard v. Wildes, 209 Ga. 282, 71 S.E.2d 549; McGill v. State of Ga., by Davis, Sol. Gen., 209 Ga. 282, 71 S.E.2d 548 ... Transferred to the Court of Appeals ... All ... ...