Allison v. Fulton-De Kalb Hospital Authority

1980-11-03

Headline: Georgia timing rule blocks federal review of a father’s constitutional challenge to hospital billing; the Court dismissed the appeal and denied further review, leaving the state court’s early‑presentation rule in place.

Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied further review, leaving the Georgia Supreme Court’s timing rule barring late federal constitutional claims in place.

Real World Impact:

Leaves a Georgia rule that can bar late federal constitutional claims from federal review.
Means litigants must raise constitutional objections earlier under Georgia’s court-made rule.
Keeps the underlying equal‑protection dispute unresolved by this Court.

Topics: state court procedure, constitutional claims timing, equal protection, civil litigation

Summary

Background

A Georgia hospital sued a man for hospital bills for his 16‑year‑old daughter under a state paternal support law. He amended his answer, after this Court’s decision in Orr v. Orr, to claim the law violated equal protection. The trial court entered judgment for the hospital and declined to apply Orr retroactively. The Georgia Supreme Court refused to decide the constitutional question because it held such claims must be raised “at the first opportunity.” The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied review.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Georgia court’s newly announced timing rule for constitutional claims prevented this Court from reviewing the federal question. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a brief order, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction and denied a petition for review. Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) dissented, arguing the state rule conflicted with Georgia’s civil procedure statute that allows amendments before a pretrial order and that the rule unfairly singled out federal constitutional claims.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the underlying equal‑protection issue was left undecided by this Court. The decision leaves intact a state court timing rule that can bar federal review of constitutional challenges when a state court treats the rule as an independent basis for its decision. This outcome can affect litigants who rely on prior state practice when deciding when to raise federal claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan would have postponed the jurisdictional dismissal, heard argument, and considered whether the state rule improperly discriminates against federal constitutional claims and conflicts with state statute.