Clark v. Atlanta Independent School System
311 Ga. App. 255
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Clark et al. filed a class action challenging use of school tax monies for noneducational purposes in a multi-party action against the Atlanta Public School System, ADA, and the City.
- Woodham v. City of Atlanta prompted the suit, holding school funds could not fund BeltLine redevelopment under prior constitutional constraints.
- HB 63, enacted in 2009, amended Redevelopment Powers Law allowing school funds to be used for redevelopment purposes, potentially affecting the case.
- Interim injunctive relief was sought; the trial court issued an injunction prohibiting certain disbursements related to TADs.
- Two Board resolutions (April 13, 2009 and June 8, 2009) related to BeltLine and Perry Bolton TADs were adopted; later challenged as unconstitutional insofar as they used school funds for noneducational purposes.
- Appellants sought appellate review of the August 3 and August 19 orders, arguing these orders granted partial summary judgment and altered the injunctions; the appellate court ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 3 order is directly appealable as a final/interlocutory ruling. | Clark asserts the Aug. 3 order effectively granted partial summary judgment. | Appellees contend the Aug. 3 order did not decide cross-motions for partial summary judgment. | Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the August 19 order, as amended, constitutes a direct appealable ruling on summary judgment. | Appellants argue the Aug. 19 order effectuated a partial summary judgment in favor of appellants. | Appellees maintain the Aug. 19 order did not address summary judgment on Counts VI and related claims. | No direct appealable ruling; August 19 order not a valid basis for direct appeal. |
| Whether the cross-appeal in Case A11A0551 is proper given the orders at issue. | Appellants contend cross-appeal is proper to challenge the denial of a TRO or related orders. | Defendants argue no independent jurisdiction exists for the cross-appeal. | Cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the notices of appeal mooted the injunction-related issues or affected jurisdiction. | Notice of appeal purportedly preserved appellate rights despite transfers. | Transfers without supersedeas mooted issues; jurisdictional basis lacking. | Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether remittitur filings affected the court’s jurisdiction or mootness. | Remittitur filings do not cure lack of jurisdiction. | Remittitur filings do not create appellate jurisdiction. | Motion for reconsideration denied; remaining appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodham v. City of Atlanta, 283 Ga. 95 (Ga. 2008) (held school funds could not be used for BeltLine redevelopment under prior constitutional constraints)
- Jackson v. Bibb County School Dist., 271 Ga. 18 (Ga. 1999) (interlocutory injunction standards; finality considerations)
- Forest City Gun Club v. Chatham County, 280 Ga.App. 219 (Ga. App. 2006) (threshold for interlocutory injunctions and related standards)
- Studdard v. Satcher, etc. Inc., 217 Ga.App. 1 (Ga. App. 1995) (appeals from summary judgments and related procedures)
- First Christ Holiness Church v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church, 282 Ga. 883 (Ga. 2008) (appealability of certain interlocutory orders; role of final judgments)
- Garden Hills Civic Assn. v. MARTA, 273 Ga. 280 (Ga. 2000) (interplay of injunctive relief and merits-based considerations)