SMITH v. HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; And Vice Versa

Smith and Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had cross-petitions asking the Supreme Court of Georgia to review a decision of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. The Supreme Court declined to take up either petition, meaning the Court of Appeals' ruling stands undisturbed. Although all the Justices agreed with denying review, Justice Pinson wrote separately, joined by two other Justices, to raise concerns about a legal doctrine called primary jurisdiction, which lets courts pause a case and send technical questions to a government agency for its expert input. Pinson traced the doctrine's federal roots and noted that Georgia's courts, including a 2018 decision, had adopted a more discretionary version of it without clearly explaining where Georgia law gives courts that power. He suggested the court take a closer look at the issue in a future case, since the parties here had not raised it.

The court denied certiorari without deciding any legal question on the merits; Justice Pinson's concurrence does not change the outcome but flags for future litigants and courts that the scope of Georgia's primary jurisdiction doctrine remains unsettled and may deserve fresh examination.

The concurrence signals that a future Georgia case could revisit whether trial courts may pause litigation and defer technical questions to agencies like the Public Service Commission, which matters for utilities, regulated businesses, and any litigant facing agency-related disputes.

Certiorari denied

1. The order itself simply states that the Court denied the petitions for certiorari, meaning it chose not to review the Court of Appeals' decision, without explaining any substantive legal reasoning.
2. In a separate concurrence, Justice Pinson explained that the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which lets a court send an issue to a government agency for expert resolution, actually contains two different versions: one required by a specific statute's own terms, and one based purely on judicial discretion to seek agency expertise.
3. Pinson reasoned that the statute-based version is simply ordinary statutory interpretation that Georgia courts can and do apply, whether the statute is federal or state.
4. He questioned the discretionary version, noting that a 2018 Georgia Supreme Court decision (Ga. Power Co. v. Cazier) adopted it by citing federal and out-of-state cases without identifying where in Georgia law courts get the authority to allocate decision-making power between courts and agencies this way.
5. Because this case involved unusual complications, including claims under Washington D.C. law and issues touching a federal agency's jurisdiction, Pinson concluded it was not the right vehicle to resolve these open questions, but recommended addressing them in a future, more suitable case.

• certiorari denial
• primary jurisdiction doctrine
• administrative agencies
• Public Service Commission