Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the provisions, decisions under former Ga. Const. 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XVI, Para. I and antecedent provisions, which authorized the General Assembly to abolish only those courts which were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, are included in the annotations for this paragraph.

Legislature cannot abolish or diminish the jurisdiction of courts established by the Constitution; this does not prohibit the legislature from abolishing these courts by merger of counties. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931).

Legislation may not give court's power to agency.

- Trial court properly ruled that O.C.G.A. § 17-10-6, which authorized the Georgia Sentence Review Panel to review and reduce sentences, was unconstitutional as the Georgia General Assembly does not have the constitutional authority to divest the trial courts of Georgia of their traditional jurisdiction over sentencing by creating a quasi-appellate tribunal (such as the Panel) to review and alter the otherwise lawful sentences imposed by those trial courts. Sentence Review Panel v. Moseley, 284 Ga. 128, 663 S.E.2d 679 (2008).

Exclusive jurisdiction of the superior court cannot be divested. Williams v. State, 138 Ga. 168, 74 S.E. 1083 (1912).

In merging contiguous counties, incidental abolishment of courts permitted.

- It is the duty of the court to construe the constitutional provision providing for merger of counties as conferring, by necessary implication, upon the legislature the power of enacting legislation for merging of contiguous counties, although the incidental effect of such Acts may be to supersede constitutional courts and abolish constitutional officers existing in the counties merged at the dates when the merger Acts become effective. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931).

Intra-county request for judicial assistance.

- Intra-county request for judicial assistance under O.C.G.A. § 15-1-9.1(b)(2)(C) did not create a separate court, but was a constitutionally-permitted request for intra-county judicial assistance where the request and the response set out the matters to be handled by the two juvenile court judges who had agreed to assist the superior court; accordingly, the intra-county request and response were neither an unconstitutional creation of a class of court in violation of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. I, nor an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority by members of the judiciary in violation of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VII. Earl v. Mills, 278 Ga. 128, 598 S.E.2d 480 (2004).

Power to transfer cases.

- The legislature has implied power to transfer cases of the abolished court to another existing court. Macon, D. & S.R.R. v. Calhoun, 138 Ga. 165, 74 S.E. 1030 (1912).

Intermediate appellate court erred in reversing a trial court's denial of a health care providers' motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death claim; although the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow an exception to O.C.G.A. § 51-4-2(a) to authorize a guardian to bring the wrongful death claim, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VIII required that the trial court's ruling be vacated and the case remanded with direction to transfer the case to superior court. Blackmon v. Tenet Healthsystem Spalding, Inc., 284 Ga. 369, 667 S.E.2d 348 (2008).

Construction of this paragraph and Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. XI (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II).

- In construing provisions in this paragraph and Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. XI (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. I, Para. II), their meaning is that the legislature cannot abolish constitutional courts and constitutional officers where the purpose of the Act is to accomplish this alone. But where the Constitution grants to the legislature the power to merge contiguous counties, which is done in conformity to the power, and where the merging Act has the incidental effect of superseding certain courts existing in the merged county by those of the county into which the merged county is absorbed, and of abolishing certain offices held under general provisions of the Constitution in the county absorbed, such merger Act is not unconstitutional and void because it is in conflict with the provision of the Constitution inhibiting the abolition of constitutional courts and officers. Hines v. Etheridge, 173 Ga. 870, 162 S.E. 113 (1931) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Para. VII).

Cited in Nobles v. State, 81 Ga. App. 229, 58 S.E.2d 496 (1950); Granger v. State, 235 Ga. 681, 221 S.E.2d 451 (1975); Chatham County v. Mulling, 248 Ga. 878, 286 S.E.2d 735 (1982); Bush v. Reeves, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Dec. 22, 2005).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §§ 4 et seq., 8 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 21 C.J.S., Courts, § 166 et seq.