Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc.

180 S.E.2d 737, 227 Ga. 384, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 711

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 4, 1971

Docket26298

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 180 S.E.2d 737 (Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc.) 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

Taylor v. Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc., 180 S.E.2d 737, 227 Ga. 384, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 711 (Ga. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Almand, Chief Justice.

Floyd M. Taylor, Jr., and others, in their complaint for a declaratory judgment against Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc., sought: "(a) A judicial determination as to the constitutionality of Georgia Code Ann., Chapter III, Section 3, authorizing Tobacco Boards of Trade, (b) A judicial determination be made as to whether the rules and regulations adopted by the Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc. are in restraint of trade or in conflict with the laws of this State or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.” The only allegations as to the unconstitutionality of any statute of the State are: "Petitioners show that the act of the General Assembly delegating to the defendant authority to establish rules and regulations is an attempt to delegate a legislative function and is unconstitutional.”

The prayers of the petition were that the court adjudicate, determine and declare the rights of the petitioners with respect to the matters set out in the petition. There were no prayers for any equitable relief.

After a hearing, the court passed an order denying the prayers for a declaratory judgment and dismissing the complaint. The appeal is from this order.

*385 Submitted February 8, 1971 Decided March 4, 1971 Rehearing denied March 18, 1971. Billy G. Fallin, for appellants. Hoyt H. Whelchel, Jr., for appellee.

The appeal does not state the reason why the appeal was made to this court. Held:

To properly raise the question as to the unconstitutionality of a statute the complaint must specify: (a) the particular statute; (b) the specific provision of the Constitution that the statute violates; and (c) how and in what manner the statute violates the specified provisions of the Constitution. Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773 (95 SE2d 677). None of the allegations in the petition raises a constitutional question over which this court has jurisdiction. Ledford v. J. M. Muse Co., 224 Ga. 617 (163 SE2d 815). The case is

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

Almand, Chief Justice.

Floyd M. Taylor, Jr., and others, in their complaint for a declaratory judgment against Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc., sought: "(a) A judicial determination as to the constitutionality of Georgia Code Ann., Chapter III, Section 3, authorizing Tobacco Boards of Trade, (b) A judicial determination be made as to whether the rules and regulations adopted by the Moultrie Tobacco Sales Board, Inc. are in restraint of trade or in conflict with the laws of this State or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.” The only allegations as to the unconstitutionality of any statute of the State are: "Petitioners show that the act of the General Assembly delegating to the defendant authority to establish rules and regulations is an attempt to delegate a legislative function and is unconstitutional.”

The prayers of the petition were that the court adjudicate, determine and declare the rights of the petitioners with respect to the matters set out in the petition. There were no prayers for any equitable relief.

After a hearing, the court passed an order denying the prayers for a declaratory judgment and dismissing the complaint. The appeal is from this order.

*385 Submitted February 8, 1971 Decided March 4, 1971 Rehearing denied March 18, 1971. Billy G. Fallin, for appellants. Hoyt H. Whelchel, Jr., for appellee.

The appeal does not state the reason why the appeal was made to this court. Held:

To properly raise the question as to the unconstitutionality of a statute the complaint must specify: (a) the particular statute; (b) the specific provision of the Constitution that the statute violates; and (c) how and in what manner the statute violates the specified provisions of the Constitution. Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773 (95 SE2d 677). None of the allegations in the petition raises a constitutional question over which this court has jurisdiction. Ledford v. J. M. Muse Co., 224 Ga. 617 (163 SE2d 815). The case is

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E.2d 737, 227 Ga. 384, 1971 Ga. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-moultrie-tobacco-sales-board-inc-ga-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack