Pollard v. State

Decided November 9, 1972

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1972-11-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““that involve the application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution to a given state of facts and that do not involve construction of some constitutional provision directly in question and doubtful either under its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia or the Supreme Court of the United States.” [Pollard v. State, 229 Ga. 698 ( 194 SE2d 107 ) (1972).]”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 222 Ga. App. 144 - Braden v. Bell

Relies on Howle v. Personnel Board of Appeals

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2020

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Undercofler, Justice.

¶1 The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to decide questions of law that involve the application, in a general sense, of unquestioned and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution to a given state of facts and that do not involve construction of some constitutional provision directly in question and doubtful either under its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia or the Supreme Court of the United States. Howle v. Personnel Bd. of App. of City of East Point, 226 Ga. 169 (173 SE2d 220). Since the constitutional question presented in this appeal does not involve the construction of some constitutional provision directly in question and doubtful either under its own terms or under the decisions of the Supreme Court of Georgia or the Supreme Court of the United States, this appeal is

¶2 Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.