Model Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Per Corp.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Model Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Per Corp.

191 S.E.2d 63, 229 Ga. 347, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 611

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1972

Docket27316

StatusPublished

This text of 191 S.E.2d 63 (Model Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Per Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Model Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. v. Per Corp., 191 S.E.2d 63, 229 Ga. 347, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 611 (Ga. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Justice.

Jurisdiction of this appeal in the Supreme Court is asserted because of the sustaining of a motion to quash service which included as one ground an attack upon a statute as being constitutional "as applied” to the defendant, and "to the extent” that It applies to the defendant. No express ruling upon such ground of the motion to quash service was made. The motion, which contained several grounds, was sustained without reference to any particular ground. Under decisions exemplified by Ga. Power Co. v. City of Cedartown, 223 Ga. 453 (156 SE2d 51); Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519 (74 SE2d 461); Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653 (171 SE2d 124), the attack upon the statute was insufficient to present any constitutional question which would place jurisdiction of the appeal, otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, in this court.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nichols, Justice.

Jurisdiction of this appeal in the Supreme Court is asserted because of the sustaining of a motion to quash service which included as one ground an attack upon a statute as being constitutional "as applied” to the defendant, and "to the extent” that It applies to the defendant. No express ruling upon such ground of the motion to quash service was made. The motion, which contained several grounds, was sustained without reference to any particular ground. Under decisions exemplified by Ga. Power Co. v. City of Cedartown, 223 Ga. 453 (156 SE2d 51); Flynn v. State, 209 Ga. 519 (74 SE2d 461); Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co., 225 Ga. 653 (171 SE2d 124), the attack upon the statute was insufficient to present any constitutional question which would place jurisdiction of the appeal, otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, in this court.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 63, 229 Ga. 347, 1972 Ga. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/model-cleaners-laundry-inc-v-per-corp-ga-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack