uniformity clause in Georgia

2024While the uniformity clause may be violated by improper discrimination in the imposition of taxes, Decatur Tax Payers League v. Adams, Inc., 236 Ga. 871, 874 ( 226 SE2d 69 ) (1976), that is not the situation presented here.

2024While the uniformity clause may be violated by improper discrimination in the imposition of taxes, Decatur Tax Payers League v. Adams, Inc., 236 Ga. 871, 874 ( 226 SE2d 69 ) (1976), that is not the situation presented here.

2012On the other hand, if Richardson is correct and OCGA § 36-1-14 has not been repealed, then provision for the same subject matter of section 3 has been made by general law, and we must proceed to the second part of the uniformity clause providing “for an exception to the general rule of preemption when general law authorizes the local government to act and the local ordinance does not conflict with general law.” Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., supra. OCGA § 36-5-22.1 (a) (1) gives each county governing authority original and exclusive jurisdiction over “[t]he directing and controlling

2010See also Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 270 Ga. 272 (2) ( 507 SE2d 460 ) (1998) (the uniformity clause of the 1983 Georgia Constitution “follows the preemption rule of previous constitutions by precluding local or special laws when general laws exist on the same subject”).

2026See Sasser, 101 Ga. at 452 (explaining that a general law satisfies the uniformity requirement if it is “uniform in its operation or capable of being made uniform in its operation upon the subject or class of subjects with which it purported to deal”).

2026See Sasser, 101 Ga. at 452 (explaining that a general law satisfies the uniformity requirement if it is “uniform in its operation or capable of being made uniform in its operation upon the subject or class of subjects with which it purported to deal”).

2024See Hawes v. Conner, 224 Ga. 567, 568 ( 163 SE2d 724 ) (1968), (Ga. Const. Art.

2024See Hawes v. Conner, 224 Ga. 567, 568 ( 163 SE2d 724 ) (1968), (Ga. Const. Art.

2019See City of Atlanta v. Mays , 301 Ga. 367 , 370 (1) n. 7, 801 S.E.2d 1 (2017) (concluding that the Court had jurisdiction over appeal involving a Uniformity Clause challenge, because it involved a constitutional question).

2019See City of Atlanta v. Mays , 301 Ga. 367 , 370 (1) n. 7, 801 S.E.2d 1 (2017) (concluding that the Court had jurisdiction over appeal involving a Uniformity Clause challenge, because it involved a constitutional question).

2018See, e.g., Heron Lake II Apartments, L.P. v. Lowndes County Bd. of Tax Assessors , 299 Ga. 598 , 609, 791 S.E.2d 77 (2016) ; Griggs v. Greene , 230 Ga. 257 , 264 (2), 197 S.E.2d 116 (1973).

2018See, e.g., Heron Lake II Apartments, L.P. v. Lowndes County Bd. of Tax Assessors , 299 Ga. 598 , 609, 791 S.E.2d 77 (2016) ; Griggs v. Greene , 230 Ga. 257 , 264 (2), 197 S.E.2d 116 (1973).

1947See Wright v. Hirsch, 155 Ga. 229, 233 (2) ( 116 S. E. 795 ), and cases cited.

1930The State in its entirety is the taxing district; and the amount of the tax on each person of the class should be the same in every county’ of the State, in order to conform to the uniformity clause of the State constitution as set forth in article 7, section 2, paragraph 1 (Civil Code, § 6553), which declares: “All taxation shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects, and ad valorem on all. property subject to be taxed within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.” Upon this point the ease is within the principles di

1994In finding that the appellant’s method of valuation violated the uniformity clause, the trial court misplaced its reliance upon Griggs v. Greene, 230 Ga. 257 ( 197 SE2d 116 ) (1973), wherein the State Revenue Commissioner proposed to adjust real property differently according to its location inside or outside the city limits.

1994In finding that the appellant’s method of valuation violated the uniformity clause, the trial court misplaced its reliance upon Griggs v. Greene, 230 Ga. 257 ( 197 SE2d 116 ) (1973), wherein the State Revenue Commissioner proposed to adjust real property differently according to its location inside or outside the city limits.

2025See McLeod v. Columbia County, 278 Ga. 242 , 242–45 (2004) (holding that a stormwater utility charge was not a tax and thus not subject to the Constitution’s uniformity requirement); Homewood I, 292 Ga. at 514–15 (holding the same for the ordinance at issue in this case).

2019It also means that the levy for State purposes must be uniform throughout the State.”) While the uniformity clause may be violated by improper discrimination in the imposition of taxes, Decatur Tax Payers League v. Adams, Inc., 236 Ga. 871, 874 ( 226 SE2d 69 ) (1976) that is not the situation in the instant appeals. 14 In these cases, the BOE’s evaluations of the properties in the previous appeals “already would have taken [the] existence of increase or decrease in surrounding property values into consideration and, as part of equalization, taken such other property values into consideration i

2019Thus, a subsequent reassessment of other comparable property “would bring such other property into equalization and uniformity with the subject property, which had its fair market value determined on appeal.” Id. at 410 (2) (b) n. 3.

2010II (cases questioning constitutionality of law are in exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Georgia). 25 See Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108 (3) ( 538 SE2d 430 ) (2000); Buchan v. Hobby, 288 Ga. App. 478, 479-480 ( 654 SE2d 444 ) (2007) (where trial court does not rule on whether OCGA § 9-11-68 was constitutional, and Supreme Court thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over appeal, we cannot consider arguments on statute’s constitutionality). 26 See Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23 (1), 28 (2) ( 694 SE2d 83 ) (2010) (finding no merit in arguments that OCGA § 9-11-68 violated a purported c

2010II (cases questioning constitutionality of law are in exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Georgia). 25 See Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108 (3) ( 538 SE2d 430 ) (2000); Buchan v. Hobby, 288 Ga. App. 478, 479-480 ( 654 SE2d 444 ) (2007) (where trial court does not rule on whether OCGA § 9-11-68 was constitutional, and Supreme Court thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over appeal, we cannot consider arguments on statute’s constitutionality). 26 See Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23 (1), 28 (2) ( 694 SE2d 83 ) (2010) (finding no merit in arguments that OCGA § 9-11-68 violated a purported c

2010II (cases questioning constitutionality of law are in exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Georgia). 25 See Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108 (3) ( 538 SE2d 430 ) (2000); Buchan v. Hobby, 288 Ga. App. 478, 479-480 ( 654 SE2d 444 ) (2007) (where trial court does not rule on whether OCGA § 9-11-68 was constitutional, and Supreme Court thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over appeal, we cannot consider arguments on statute’s constitutionality). 26 See Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23 (1), 28 (2) ( 694 SE2d 83 ) (2010) (finding no merit in arguments that OCGA § 9-11-68 violated a purported c

2010II (cases questioning constitutionality of law are in exclusive jurisdiction of Supreme Court of Georgia). 25 See Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108 (3) ( 538 SE2d 430 ) (2000); Buchan v. Hobby, 288 Ga. App. 478, 479-480 ( 654 SE2d 444 ) (2007) (where trial court does not rule on whether OCGA § 9-11-68 was constitutional, and Supreme Court thus declines to exercise jurisdiction over appeal, we cannot consider arguments on statute’s constitutionality). 26 See Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23 (1), 28 (2) ( 694 SE2d 83 ) (2010) (finding no merit in arguments that OCGA § 9-11-68 violated a purported c

2001Although the powers approved by the legislature in such charters “ ‘are subject to limitations and preemptions imposed by general law,’ ” Little v. City of Lawrenceville, 272 Ga. 340, 341 (1) ( 528 SE2d 515 ) (2000), we do not find a violation of the uniformity clause in this case.

2001Although the powers approved by the legislature in such charters “ ‘are subject to limitations and preemptions imposed by general law,’ ” Little v. City of Lawrenceville, 272 Ga. 340, 341 (1) ( 528 SE2d 515 ) (2000), we do not find a violation of the uniformity clause in this case.

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1998VII. 7 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 656 ( 242 SE2d 139 ) (1978) (prior cases in this area are irreconcilable); U86-22, 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. 184,185 (“Prior cases construing preemption language similar to that found in the 1983 Constitution are kaleidoscopic and hard to reconcile.”). 8 City of Atlanta v. Hudgins, 193 Ga. 618, 623 ( 19 SE2d 508 ) (1942). 9 See Powell v. Board of Comm’rs, 234 Ga. 183, 185 ( 214 SE2d 905 ) (1975). 10 See City of Atlanta v. Associated Builders, 240 Ga. at 656 . 11 See State of Georgia, Select Comm, on Constitutional Revision

1963In Ledger-Enquirer Co. v. Brown, 213 Ga. 538, 540 ( 100 SE2d 166 ), an act of the General Assembly was attacked under the uniformity clause, due process clause, and equal protection clause of the Constitution.

1963In Ledger-Enquirer Co. v. Brown, 213 Ga. 538, 540 ( 100 SE2d 166 ), an act of the General Assembly was attacked under the uniformity clause, due process clause, and equal protection clause of the Constitution.