*1 quеstion constitutionality of the the recall statute is not be before court this case and cannot nоw considered. Judgment except concur, Smith, J., All the Justices affirmed. participating. who dissents, and Bell and not
Decided appellants. Jordan, Stubbs, Frank J. for Hatcher, Land, Rothschild, Stubbs, Hollis Albert W.
Clay appel- Land, McDonald, D. Butler & Butler, James E. for lees.
45255. CORPORATION OF MERCER UNIVERSITY v.
NATIONAL GYPSUM et COMPANY al.
Smith, Appeals The United Statеs Court of for the Eleventh Circuit cer- following question tified the to this court: property damage “Whether the rule is to repose cases where there is no statute of but there are knowledge Corp. and сoncealment of hazardous defects?” Mercer University (1987). Gypsum Co., v. National F2d The answer parts questiоn to both of the is no. April University 9, On Mercer filed actions federal against district court taining several manufacturers asbestos-con- products. Among manufacturing construction these companies Gypsum, Gypsum, were defendants United States National and R.W. Grace & Co. The lawsuits were damages property arising to recover in tort for out University of the defendants’ sale to Mercer of asbestos products. allеged products Mercer that these were installed buildings constructed or renovated between campuses. on its Atlanta and Macon summary judgment ground Defendants moved on the plaintiffs that the claims were limi- bаrred applying Georgia’s court, rule, tations. The district four-year begin held that the run until statute of limitations did not reasonably Mercer knew should have known that products necessary the removal of defendants’ tо elimi- nate the hazard associated with the asbestos. It therefore de- nied the summary judgment motions. After a bifurcated jury compensatory damages awarded Mercer $114,800.18 $284,901.00 against Gypsum, against National $1,000,000 punitive W.R. Grace & damages against companies. subsequent appeals by both National Gypsum University’s and W.R. Grace & and Mercer cross-appeal, appeal were with Mercer’s earlier cоnsolidated *2 Gypsum. of the district court’s dismissal of United States Id.
1. This case property damage only, persоnal involves there is no applicable involved. The statute of limitations in this case is provides OCGA 9-3-30 which brоught the action must be years within right four after the of action accrues. plurality in Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pattillo оpinion (330 344) (1985),
Constr.
Weltner, Bell, J., Judge Fryer concur. Joel J. J., specially. Gregory, concurs disqualified. Justice, concurring specially.
Bell, I agree case, with the result this because there is no repose. my speсial See concurrence Lumbermen’s Mut. (330 344) Cas. Co. v. Pattillo Constr. 254 Ga. SE2d (1985). However, I in in- apply would continue to the rule stances where there is a statute of repose.
Decided June July Reconsideration denied Martin, Snow, Cubbedge Houpt, Napier, Corinne E. Grant & Snow, Jr., Patterson, Nido, Rock, Mary Bracewell & M. Darci L. Luis Parker, Jr, Dies, Corporation
Caroline Martin W. of Mercer Uni- versity. Hawkins, Jagger, Morgan,
Freeman & & Juliа Bennett Lewis Bockius, McRae, Kenworthy, Kilpatrick Cody, Thomas B. & Mara A. Stephens Kerr, Clay, Hoyle, Hoyle, Morris & T. Good- Lawrence win, Hoar, Remis, Cohen, Smith, Shеpard Procter & M. Kenneth A. Gambrell, Martin, A. Handley, Russell David Jonathan D. Moon- ves, McCarter, Gypsum Company Thоmas E. for National et al. Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Branch, III, Dixon & B. Adams Alfred Stevenson, Laura E. amicus curiae.
45481. BASSETT v. et al. LEMACKS (370 SE2d Gregory, Joseph
Petitioner Michael Bassett was convicted cocaine. His conviction was Appeals. affirmed Bassett Court State, 48) (1987).1 v. App. Ga. Petitioner subse- quently filed this application for habeas corpus contending that statute undеr which he was repealed by legis- convicted had been *3 prior lature to his and he was entitled corpus to habeas relief. The corpus petition, habeas court denied granted and this court pеtitioner’s application appeal. petitioner 14, on indicted June trafficking 6, 1985,
cocaine in on that June he knowingly “did into this bring knowingly state and possession actual of more than 400 [was] a grams containing (Emphasis of mixture supplied.) cocaine.” at evidence trial petitioner showed that at the time оf arrest had possession his 428 grams substance, grams of a 342.4 of which were pure cocaine. He was сharged convicted the crime on November indictment,
At the 14, 1985, statute, time trafficking (a), OCGA provided persоn 16-13-31 . “Any knowingly who. .is possession actual 28 grams any or more of mixture cocaine containing . .commits felоny cocaine. offense of in co- . caine. .” (Emphasis supplied.) July legislature Effective 1985 the “by (a) аmended OCGA striking 16-13-31 subsection said Code section in its entirety and substituting lieu thereof a new subsec- (a) ‘(a) tion follows, Any as person knowingly read . .is who. possession actual grams of 28 or more . the fel- of cocaine. .commits ony Laws, offense of trafficking pp. in cocaine. . . .’” 1985 Ga. appeal. Petitioner did not raise the us on issue before direct