Norkesia Turner v. Medical Center of Central Georgia (Georgia Supreme Court Amicus Brief)
Summary: This is an amicus brief in the Georgia Supreme Court, concerning the (un)constitutionality of Georgia’s statute capping noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases that kill the victim. The Georgia Supreme Court in Taylor v. Devereux Foundation (2023) identified a constitutional paradox: despite the 1983 Georgia Constitution repealing all previous constitutions, courts continue to define the right to jury trial by referencing the 1798 Constitution.
This creates two key issues:
The "1798 anchor" problem: For nearly 175 years, Georgia courts have held that the constitutional right to jury trial only applies to cases where such right existed in 17983. However, this approach contradicts Article XI, Section 1, Paragraph VI of the 1983 Constitution, which made the new constitution effective July 1, 1983, repealing all previous constitutions20.
The jury trial right for modern claims: If the 1983 Constitution stands independently, then under Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery v. Nestlehutt (2010), statutory caps on wrongful death damages would be unconstitutional as violating the right to jury trial.
The Taylor court recognized this inconsistency, noting that while the legislature can create new causes of action, it cannot "abrogate constitutional rights that may inhere in common law causes of action"3. This principle was established in Nestlehutt, which should control over earlier conflicting decisions3.
Even if 1798 remains the anchor year, wrongful death damages were actually available at common law, contrary to conventional understanding. So even then the cap on damages would still be unconstitutional.
Document:
Jackson v. State of Utah — Sovereign Immunity Brief
Summary: This is a wrongful death case against the State of Utah, based on the state’s negligence in allowing a felon to remain out on parole despite multiple parole violations. While on parole, the felon got high on drugs, drove recklessly, lost control, and killed two little boys, each three years old, in front of the 12-year old sister of one of the boys. This brief argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity violates the Utah Constitution.
The brief argues that sovereign immunity has no legitimate historical or constitutional basis in Utah law, particularly as applied to counties, special service districts (like Wasatch Behavioral Health), and government employees.
Key arguments include:
Historical evidence: At the time of Utah's 1895 Constitution, counties and government employees were fully liable for torts. The 1888 Territorial Code explicitly provided that counties and various government bodies could "sue and be sued" with no immunity provisions.
Constitutional rejection: The Utah Constitutional Convention explicitly considered and rejected a proposed clause that would have created partial sovereign immunity.
Constitutional principles: Utah's Constitution affirms that "all political power is inherent in the people" and creates a tripartite government with no sovereign king, making sovereign immunity conceptually incompatible.
Lack of foundation: Courts have never adequately explained how sovereign immunity comports with Utah's Constitution. The doctrine entered Utah law through the 1913 Wilkinson case, which incorrectly claimed sovereign immunity was "universal" despite contrary evidence.
Historical misunderstanding: American sovereign immunity is based on a misreading of English law, which by 1776 had evolved into a limited procedural doctrine allowing claims against the government.
The "Great Conundrum": The brief questions why founders who suffered governmental abuse would grant their new government privilege to commit torts against citizens with impunity.
The brief concludes that the Governmental Immunity Act unconstitutionally extinguishes claims against Wasatch without providing alternatives or addressing any great public evil, violating Utah's open courts and wrongful death constitutional provisions.
Document:
Holloway v. Emory — Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defense Experts
Documents:
Click here for a pdf of Plaintiff’s opening brief.