Abel v. State

28 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Ray

    113 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. 1960)   Cited 9 times

    "In order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a `law' (Code, Ann. Supp., ยง 2-3704), the statute which the party challenges, and the provision of the Constitution alleged to have been violated, must both be clearly specified, and it must also be shown wherein the statute violates such constitutional provision. Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241, 245 (2b) ( 39 S.E.2d 473); Price v. State, 202 Ga. 205 (1) ( 42 S.E.2d 728)." Krasner v. Rutledge, 204 Ga. 380, 382 ( 49 S.E.2d 864).

  2. Crow v. McCallum

    215 Ga. 692 (Ga. 1960)   Cited 13 times

    It was therefore not error to sustain demurrers to each of these paragraphs of the answer. See also Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241 ( 39 S.E.2d 473). 6.

  3. North Ga. Finishing v. Di-Chem

    231 Ga. 260 (Ga. 1973)   Cited 12 times
    In North Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 231 Ga. 260 (201 S.E.2d 321) (1973), a pre-judgment garnishment case, we held Georgia's garnishment statutes as they existed prior to the 1975 amendment, to be constitutional.

    In so grave or important a matter as declaring invalid an act of a co-ordinate department of government, the courts will not act upon vague and uncertain charges, and should decline to do so unless and until a clear and specific contention or question is presented for determination. [Cits.]." Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651, 654 ( 10 S.E.2d 198). Accordingly, on many occasions this court has refused to consider attacks which do not measure up to these requirements.

  4. Lewis v. State

    184 S.E.2d 453 (Ga. 1971)

    The case not otherwise being one within the jurisdiction of this court ( Code Ann. ยง 2-3704; Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1287; Code Ann. ยง 26-1601), the appeal must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. See Inlow v. State, 168 Ga. 377 ( 147 S.E. 881); Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Mullis v. State, 197 Ga. 550, 553 ( 30 S.E.2d 99); and Wright v. State, 217 Ga. 453, 456 ( 122 S.E.2d 737). Transferred to the Court of Appeals. All the Justices concur.

  5. Lane v. Morrison

    181 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. 1971)   Cited 1 times

    This court has repeatedly held that in order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a statute it must be shown wherein the statute violates the constitutional provision specified. Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651, 653 ( 10 S.E.2d 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 the constitutional provision specified, and was insufficient to raise the question of the constitutionality of the statute. There being no other basis for this court's jurisdiction in the appeal, the case must be transferred to the Court of Appeals.

  6. Tomlinson v. Sadler

    107 S.E.2d 215 (Ga. 1959)   Cited 8 times

    In order to raise a question as to the constitutionality of a law, the statute which the party asserts to contravene the Constitution and the provisions of the Constitution alleged to have been violated must be clearly identified, and it must be shown wherein the statute violates such constitutional provisions. Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Stegall v. Southwest Ga. Regional Housing Authority, 197 Ga. 571 ( 30 S.E.2d 196). The allegations that (a) "ยง 68-808 is unconstitutional as the same permits [italics ours] this defendant to be sued in a county other than the county where he resides," (b) "said ยง 68-808 denies this defendant due process of law," and (c) "That the act of 1957 amending the act of 1937, being the Non-resident Motorist Act and of which said ยง 68-808 is a part [italics ours]," are violative of certain specified provisions of the Constitution of Georgia, are too vague and general to identify the "law" claimed to be invalid or to show wherein and how the same violates the Constitution. The attempt to attack the constitutionality of "ยง 68-808" is futile since there is no such section in the official Code of 1933.

  7. Woodside v. City of Atlanta

    214 Ga. 75 (Ga. 1958)   Cited 71 times
    In Woodside v. City of Atlanta, 214 Ga. 75 (103 S.E.2d 108), with dissents as to when a "taking" of private property occurs, it was recognized by all the members of the court as it was then constituted that just and adequate compensation must be first paid.

    Also, since it appears that a number of the named Code sections have no reference to the subject matter of an appeal from the award of the assessors in a condemnation case, and are therefore certainly not unconstitutional for any of the reasons named, no question of the constitutionality of all the Code sections as a group is properly presented. Dade County v. State of Georgia, 201 Ga. 241 ( 39 S.E.2d 473); Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519 ( 74 S.E.2d 461); Huiet v. Dayan, 194 Ga. 250 ( 21 S.E.2d 423); Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Gormley v. Searcy, 179 Ga. 389 ( 175 S.E. 913). It is therefore apparent that no constitutional question such as to give this court jurisdiction in this case is presented, and the case not being one otherwise within the jurisdiction of this court, should be transferred to the Court of Appeals.

  8. Connelly v. Balkcom

    99 S.E.2d 817 (Ga. 1957)   Cited 7 times

    " There is no attack made upon the constitutionality of this statute, and in the absence of a valid attack thereon, its constitutionality is presumed. Mayes v. Daniel, 186 Ga. 345(1), 350 (198 S.E. 535); Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651, 654 ( 10 S.E.2d 198). Since, even if a demand for trial is made at the term an indictment is found, an accused is not entitled to a discharge for the failure to try him until the next succeeding regular term of court has passed without his being tried, where, as here, no demand for trial was made and the accused was tried at the next succeeding regular term of court after the term at which he was indicted, his contention that he was denied a speedy trial is clearly without merit. The fact that, at his trial in October, 1954, the petitioner was adjudged insane upon a special plea of insanity and committed to the State Hospital in Milledgeville does not constitute a violation of his right to a speedy trial.

  9. City of Moultrie v. Colquitt County c. Co.

    211 Ga. 842 (Ga. 1955)   Cited 16 times
    In City of Moultrie v. Colquitt County Rural Elec. Co., 211 Ga. 842, 89 S.E.2d 657, it was held that the limitation on a Co-operative is to be determined at the time the application for service is made. And, here too, the Georgia Court denied relief to the Co-operative on the issue of extending its service.

    The assertion that a law or an ordinance violates a stated provision of the Constitution as being discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable, without setting out how or wherein such ordinance is discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable, is too indefinite to invoke any ruling upon the constitutionality of such law or ordinance. Hood v. Mayor c. of Griffin, 113 Ga. 190, 191 ( 38 S.E. 409); Curtis v. Town of Helen, 171 Ga. 256, 257 (2c) ( 155 S.E. 202); Jordan v. State, 172 Ga. 857 ( 159 S.E. 235); Montgomery c. Freight Lines v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 175 Ga. 826, 831 ( 166 S.E. 200); Herndon v. State, 179 Ga. 597, 602 ( 176 S.E. 620); Williams v. McIntosh County, 179 Ga. 735, 741 ( 177 S.E. 248); Gray v. City of Atlanta, 183 Ga. 730 ( 189 S.E. 591); Rose Theatre v. Lilly, 185 Ga. 53 ( 193 S.E. 866); Poole v. Arnold, 187 Ga. 734, 742 ( 2 S.E.2d 83); Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Estes v. Jones, 202 Ga. 749 ( 44 S.E.2d 550). No attack is made by any allegation of the petition upon the act of the City of Moultrie in annexing blocks 6, 7, and 8 of section 2 of East Moultrie Heights Subdivision.

  10. Flynn v. State

    74 S.E.2d 461 (Ga. 1953)   Cited 15 times

    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 a 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, violated such constitutional provision. Pace v. Goodson, 127 Ga. 211 ( 56 S.E. 363); Rooks v. Tindall, 138 Ga. 863 (2) ( 76 S.E. 378); Crapp v. State, 148 Ga. 150 ( 95 S.E. 993); Wright v. Cannon, 185 Ga. 363, 364 ( 195 S.E. 168); Abel v. State, 190 Ga. 651 ( 10 S.E.2d 198); Emerson v. Southwest Ga. Reg. Housing Authority, 196 Ga. 675 ( 27 S.E.2d 334); Stegall v. Southwest Ga. Reg. Housing Authority, 197 Ga. 571, 582 ( 30 S.E.2d 196); Dade County v. State of Georgia, supra. Nothing less than this would comport with the requirement of good pleading, to the effect that a party must plainly, fully, and distinctly set forth his cause of action, legal or equitable. Code, ยง 81-101. Measured by the foregoing rules, how stands the present case?