*1 every impact record shows was listed in doc- that not adverse uments. point requirement agree-
The salient is that there is no in these comprises parcel ments land which D-1090 be donated Likewise, park. as a agreements MARTA neither nor other these property acquired by instruments under which the MARTA convey right property. closely strict MARTA’s We have ex- (f)4 Agreements amined the and find ambiguity. Therefore, must judgment be reversed. J., J., Bell, Hunt, Ben- reversed. ham, Fletcher, JJ., concur; Weltner, G. Faircloth Mallon — January
Decided Reconsideration denied March Pursley, Howell, Lowery Meeks, Jr., Pursley, Charles N. for (case S90A1296). appellant no.
Hurt, Richardson, Garner, Cadenhead, Henry Todd & D. Fel- lows, (case S90A1297). Thomas 0. appellant no. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams, George Johnson & Hubert, Murphy, Richard N. appellees.
S90A1146. POLLARD v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA.
Hunt, 1986, plaintiff, Atha on a injured when she fell campus street of Technology. Institute She sued Regents, alleging negligence maintaining the street. The Board claimed granted and the trial court appeals motion to dismiss. Pollard and we affirm. immunity provision concedes
1983 Constitution affords ar- gues present as an pro- invalidly and was vision the new Constitution. She contends that under Constitution as ratified on November the Board of Regents enjoy does not on v. Medi- sovereign immunity. She relies cal The sovereign immunity provision legislature during Par. IX of provides: extra session
(a) immunity of state from suit or except to the extent expressly reserved may as is now or qualification hereafter law. (b) provide by law The General disposition state processing claims *2 provided therein. such maximum amount as do not exceed [Emphasis supplied.] (Ex. Sess.), p. L. 1981
Ga. was Constitution After 1981 session at which the new extra Assembly recommended for ratification and the General 1982, out of this court by in November two cases came the voters Distributing Co. Dept. Nat. immunity: sovereign which affected of 27, Transp., 248 Ga. decided October 62, McCafferty v. Medical 1981, supra, 249 Ga. of 4, February decided Co., Distributing National although General held that immunity Assembly power sovereign regarding had the waive contracts, of expressly had not so and the “State done immunity recover rely sovereign on the defense of suits 454.1 damages for breach contract.” Id. at McCafferty of Re- “powers and duties of the Board that the Constitution,” and they gents as existed rights Id. at of the legislature. cannot 69. One power sued. to sue and be Regents served was McCafferty sovereign court concluded language Because immunity Regents.2 Because had been waived as to the Board sovereign immunity provision of the 1983 Constitution pre- any immunity already had become sovereign served waivers of McCafferty, law, Pollard, relying argues of the on remained intact under sovereign however, Assembly decided, When the General An 1976 Con- was still in its 1982 session. stitution, response McCafferty, quickly adopted apparent 50-21-1; p. waiving statute See OCGA Ga. a actions contractu. meaning decision, recently words “sue of the a 4-3 and be sued” in the case of Self given power any entity ‘to in which is we said: “We now hold that instances capacity only entity the status and sue and be means sued’ courts, sovereign immunity against signify suit.” enter our and does a waiver of although powers waiver of frozen were sovereign immunity longer among was no them. upcoming p. for ratification November election. Ga. L. provided: 2546. It Sovereign immunity extends to the state and all of its de- partments agencies. However, the defense of any is waived as to action ex contractu for the any existing breach of tered into the written contract now or hereafter en- departments agencies. the state or its Also sovereign immunity defense is waived as to those ac- recovery damages any tions for the claim departments agencies state or ity of its for which liabil- protection insurance for such claims has been any liability provided. to the extent of insurance Moreover, the state or of its departments agencies may hereafter be waived further specifically provides Act of the General that the waived and the extent . .
waiver. . This amendment to the 1976 Constitution extended immu- nity departments *3 agencies.” to “the state and all its It restored Regents. It was ratified at the November 1982 election. argues, however,
Pollard that the amendment to the 1976 Consti- superseded by origi- containing tution was the new Constitution nal the waiver of the (but of the supra). -2, as in see footnote (restoring sovereign The substitution of the 1976 amendment immunity) serving original provision (pre- for in the new Constitution waiver) according way was, because of the accomplished, invalid. accomplished by special The commission, substitution was which was established the new Constitution and with rec- onciling newly ratified amendments to the 1976 Constitution with the new Const., XI, I, Constitution. Art. Sec. Par. V:
Amendments to the Constitution of 1976 which were deter- general mined to be and which were to and rati- submitted people fied of the entire state at the same time this incorporated Constitution was shall be and made a Paragraph. this Constitution as in this hereby composed There is Governor, created a commission to be of the of the and the Speaker Senate, the President of the Representatives, House of Legislative Counsel, authorized directed at into this Constitution incorporate such amendments commission. places appropriate most deemed changes make such shall commission necessary as such amendments this Constitution Constitu- amendments this incorporate properly such July 1, prior to complete its duties and shall tion Con- Secretary of deliver to the State commission shall therein, and incorporated those amendments stitution with the Constitution the State document shall be supplied.] [Emphasis . . . Georgia. making in special acted ultra vires contends the commission But, we new Constitution.
grand-scale alterations mandate, to limit we find no intention the commission’s read argued editing, make mere changes the commission could clearly language, emphasized the commission Pollard. Under the 1976 Consti- incorporate the recent amendments instructed While could into the Constitution.3 tution Constitution, al- which had redraft the amendments or not ratified, slightly ready wording either could been incorporation style and, necessary, conform to facilitate order to we of the new amendments. hold 1982, p. prop- Ga. L. IX in the Constitution. erly Par. provides properly it follows that granted the board’s motion to dismiss. Fletcher, JJ., Benham, Bell, affirmed. J., dissents; Followill, Jr., concur; Smith, B. Kenneth
Weltner, J., Justice, Presiding dissenting. McCafferty Medical Col
I believe that the rule announced (1982), is still the correct law lege majority urges controls this case. While the *4 (377 674) SE2d Self, supra, in the first disagree I note I dissented instance. proposed it makes session focused on the 1981 extra next to the 1976 Constitution at
sense that the amendments were incorporating Assembly, with session of the General and the manner, legisla By proceeding in a second new amendments into the new Constitution. unnecessary. session on the new Constitution was tive
Decided March 1991. Kilgo, appellant. Witcher, Gilchrist, Jack F. E. John John W. Attorney Bowers, General, Evans, Jr., Michael J. Sen- Alfred appellee. ior Assistant S91A0360.REVELS et al. v. HAIR. (401 SE2d
Hunt, interlocutory appeal This arises from an action filed Joe Hair against huming vestigation county coroner, to restrain the coroner from ex- body Dorothy wife, Hair, of Hair’s first an in- county
into the circumstances of her death. The coroner Dorothy appeal intervenors, Hair, and the certain the children of Joe and rulings by the trial court. Appellants by entering contend the trial court erred ex
parte temporary restraining prohibiting order the exhumation of the body, by extending injunction hearing, without a and over objections, originally their tered. more than four months after it was en-
Assuming
temporary
deciding
restraining
without
or-
expired by operation
days
valid,
der was otherwise
of law 30
after
entry.
(b);
Michigan,
Mar-pak
Pointer,
its
J. Canfield, Kenneth S. John T. appellants. Gregory Christy, Gary Christy, Hardy Gregory,