Pendleton v. City of Atlanta
| Decision Date | 11 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30674,30674 |
| Citation | 224 S.E.2d 357,236 Ga. 479 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles E. PENDLETON, Sr., et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al. |
Frank E. Blankenship, Atlanta, for appellants.
Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Frank A. Bowers, Asst. Sol., Harry L. Bowden, Charles M. Lokey, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., B. Dean Grindle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellees.
These twenty appellants were arrested by Atlanta Police at various private gatherings and American Legion Posts in the Atlanta area, and charged with unlawfully establishing and promoting a lottery, in this case bingo, in violation of Code Ann. § 26-2703 (Ga.L.1968, p. 1249; 1970, pp. 236, 238). Pending trial, appellants filed a petition in Superior Court of Fulton County against the City of Atlanta and others seeking declaratory relief as to the constitutionality of certain city ordinances and state laws under which they were arrested and other alleged illegal actions on the part of the defendants.
The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that it had nothing before it to authorize a declaration of rights or the issuance of an injunction.
1. The petition for declaratory judgment shows that the alleged criminal activity has already occurred and there is pending a criminal prosecution of the appellants for the violation of the statute which they seek to have declared unconstitutional. We have held that the purpose of the Declaratory Judge Act (Code Ann. § 110-1101 (Ga.L.1945, p. 137; 1959, pp. 236, 237)) is not to delay the trial of cases of actual controversy but to guide and protect the parties from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct in order not to jeopardize their interest, and that where the alleged criminal conduct has already taken place declaratory judgment is not a proper remedy. Clark v. Karrh, 223 Ga. 851, 159 S.E.2d 75 (1968); Staub v. Mayor, etc., of Baxley, 211 Ga. 1, 83 S.E.2d 606 (1954).
2. Nor will equity as a general rule take part in the administration of the criminal law by restraining or obstructing criminal courts. Code Ann. § 55-102; Baker v. City of Atlanta, 211 Ga. 34, 83 S.E.2d 682 (1954). Appellants have not shown a threat of irreparable injury, due to threatened arrest and prosecutions nor have they shown the necessity for declaratory relief since all questions set forth in the petition concerning the statute under which they are charged and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moreton Rolleston, Jr. Living Trust v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors
...with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct in order not to jeopardize their interests. Pendleton v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 479(1), 224 S.E.2d 357 (1976). In the case sub judice, appellant is uncertain as to whether he must continue to follow the statutory appeal procedure......
-
Georgiacarry.org v. Atlanta Botanical Garden, Inc.
...persons already convicted of crimes who wish to examine or reexamine aspects of the conviction or sentence”); Pendleton v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 479(1), 224 S.E.2d 357 (1976) (no declaratory relief where petitioners were already subject to criminal proceedings); Clark v. Karrh, 223 Ga. 8......
-
General Hospitals of Humana, Inc. v. Jenkins
...to seek direction from the courts as to the propriety of future conduct which might jeopardize one's interest. Pendleton v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 479, 224 S.E.2d 357 (1976). Absent this requirement of uncertainty on the part of appellee, no declaratory judgment would have been possible. ......
-
Sarrio v. Gwinnett County
...for violation of § 74-6, providing Sarrio with an adequate remedy at law to address the validity of the ordinance. Pendleton v. Atlanta, 236 Ga. 479(2), 224 S.E.2d 357 (1976). He was also not entitled to the benefit of the exception expressed in Arnold, supra, because the trial court found ......