Robbins Firm Appellate Practice Builds on Georgia Constitutional Scholarship
On December 19, Robbins Firm appellate attorney Miles Skedsvold published a new article in the Mercer Law Review building on the firm’s examination of Georgia constitutional interpretation.
The article, appearing in Volume 77 of the Mercer Law Review, builds on first-of-its-kind scholarship addressing a recurring feature of Georgia constitutional law: the presumption that, when the Georgia Supreme Court has given a re-enacted constitutional provision a “consistent and definitive construction,” that construction represents the meaning of the current constitution unless the language of the provision is materially changed. This presumption has been a powerful—often dispositive—force in recent Georgia Supreme Court cases, but no other scholarship addresses when and how lawyers can utilize it to help their clients in high-stakes cases. So, in an earlier article, Miles analyzed an important but underexplored question in Georgia appellate litigation—how courts identify the precedent capable of triggering the presumption in the first place. This new article takes up the next key issue: whether, when, and how the presumption can be overcome.
Together, the two articles lead the way on key questions of Georgia constitutional analysis that regularly arise in high-stakes cases on appeal—and underscore the Robbins firm’s commitment to staying ahead of the curve on complex questions of Georgia law in order to deliver top tier advice and advocacy for clients.
The full article is available here: