Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, Georgia ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    March 05, 2018
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A18D0325. STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC. v. GWINNETT
    COUNTY, GEORGIA.
    In 2015, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) adopted
    new regulations for adult establishments, including retail stores that sell sex
    paraphernalia. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. (“Starship”), an operator of two
    such stores, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that certain
    provisions of the county ordinance violated the Georgia Constitution as they were
    unconstitutionally vague and regulated stand-alone adult stores differently than stores
    in a shopping mall. The Board moved for summary judgment, and also filed a
    counter-claim for a permanent injunction enjoining Starship from operating a sex
    paraphernalia store within the county. The trial court granted the Board’s motion for
    summary judgment,1 as well as its request for a permanent injunction. Starship then
    filed this application for discretionary appeal. It appears, however, that jurisdiction
    may be proper in the Supreme Court.
    The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases involving the
    construction of . . . the Constitution of the State of Georgia” and “all cases in which
    the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been drawn
    into question[.]” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II (1); see Atlanta
    1
    Starship voluntarily dismissed its complaint upon the Board’s filing of its
    motion for summary judgment. The trial court, however, found that Starship
    presented two constitutional arguments at the summary judgment hearing, and the
    court ruled on those arguments. There is no indication in the application materials
    that the case was dismissed prior to the entry of the trial court’s order.
    Independent School System v. Lane, 
    266 Ga. 657
    , 657-658 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996).
    Because Starship’s complaint challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions
    of the Board’s ordinance, it appears that jurisdiction over the application may lie in
    the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the application may ultimately be resolved
    on other grounds. See Harrison v. Wigington, 
    269 Ga. 388
    , 388 (497 SE2d 568)
    (1998) (“If a constitutional question is raised and ruled on below, [the Supreme]
    [C]ourt has exclusive appellate jurisdiction, and this is true, although upon a
    consideration of the entire case, [the Supreme] [C]ourt determines that a decision
    upon such constitutional questions is not necessary to a proper solution of the case,
    and makes no decision thereon.”) (punctuation omitted).
    As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate
    jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, 
    267 Ga. 177
    , 178 (476
    SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court
    for disposition.
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    03/05/2018
    I certify that the above is a true extract from
    the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    Witness my signature and the seal of said court
    hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
    , Clerk.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A18D0325

Filed Date: 3/15/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/15/2018