Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 1-3-8 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 3. Laws and Statutes, 1-3-1 through 1-3-11.

1-3-8. Binding effect of legislation upon state.

The state is not bound by the passage of a law unless it is named therein or unless the words of the law are so plain, clear, and unmistakable as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the General Assembly.

(Civil Code 1895, § 3; Civil Code 1910, § 3; Code 1933, § 102-109.)

History of section.

- The language of this Code section is derived in part from the decision in Lingo v. Harris, 73 Ga. 28 (1884), and Mayor of Brunswick v. King, 91 Ga. 524, 17 S.E. 940 (1892).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Section applicable to General Assembly.

- Like the state, the General Assembly, including its committees, commissions, and offices, is not subject to a law unless named therein or the intent that it be included be clear and unmistakable. Harrison Co. v. Code Revision Com., 244 Ga. 325, 260 S.E.2d 30 (1979).

University trustees (now regents) are not a sovereignty. Trustees of Univ. of Ga. v. Denmark, 141 Ga. 390, 81 S.E. 238 (1914), overruled on other grounds, Hood v. First Nat'l Bank, 219 Ga. 283, 133 S.E.2d 19 (1963).

Later court decisions indicate disposition not to broaden or increase the exceptions to this section. Butler v. Merritt, 113 Ga. 238, 38 S.E. 751 (1901); Fowler v. Rome Dispensary, 5 Ga. App. 36, 62 S.E. 660 (1908).

Statute providing for condemnation of property for public use is applicable only to private property, and not to property owned by the state. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Western & A.R.R., 142 Ga. 532, 83 S.E. 135 (1914).

Municipal building ordinance ultra vires insofar as affects state.

- Where repairs are being made upon a building owned by the state, on state property, it is wholly a matter of state concern, and a municipal building ordinance is ultra vires insofar as it affects the state. City of Atlanta v. State, 181 Ga. 346, 182 S.E. 184 (1935).

Cited in Wilson v. City of Eatonton, 180 Ga. 598, 180 S.E. 227 (1935); Kirk v. Bray, 181 Ga. 814, 184 S.E. 733 (1935); Jones v. Staton, 78 Ga. App. 890, 52 S.E.2d 481 (1949); Anderson v. Department of Family & Children Servs., 118 Ga. App. 318, 163 S.E.2d 328 (1968); Fuqua Television, Inc. v. Fleming, 134 Ga. App. 731, 215 S.E.2d 694 (1975); Elbert County v. Georgia Insurers Insolvency Pool, 185 Ga. App. 803, 366 S.E.2d 153 (1988); Moreland v. State, 304 Ga. App. 468, 696 S.E.2d 448 (2010).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Section applicable to municipal corporations and state instrumentalities.

- This section not only applies to municipal corporations, but also applies to public corporations that are an instrumentality of the state. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 5.

Nothing in lien laws in former Code 1933, §§ 67-1701 and 67-2001 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-14-360 et seq.) indicate intention to bind the state thereby; these laws are in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed, and one claiming thereunder must bring oneself clearly within the law. 1957 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 179.

State property is not subject to regulation by lesser governmental authorities, for the reason that such lesser governments exercise only the powers delegated to them by the state, and any general delegation of power does not apply to the state or its instrumentalities in the absence of express language or clear implication in the statutes. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-113.

City cannot affect property owned by the State of Georgia or the state's agencies and any ordinance affecting such property would be ultra vires and of no effect as far as the state and the state's property are concerned. 1967 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 67-73.

State park authority not required to obtain dairy processing plant license.

- A state park authority, created as a body corporate and politic and deemed to be an instrumentality of the state and a public corporation, is not required to obtain a dairy processing plant license to operate an ice cream parlor. 1958-59 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 5.

Licensing requirements do not apply to state and local governments. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-17.

Lobbying registering provisions not applicable to state or political subdivisions.

- State, county, and city officials, employees, and their representatives who intend, in their official capacities, to aid or oppose the enactment of any bill by either house of the General Assembly were not required to register with the Secretary of State pursuant to former Code 1933, § 47-1001 et seq. since nothing in the law specifically made the provisions applicable to the state or its political subdivisions. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 75-28.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 62 et seq., 311.

ALR.

- Applicability of constitutional provision requiring reenactment of altered or amended statute to one which leaves intact terms of original statute, but transfers or extends its operation to another field, 67 A.L.R. 564.

Applicability of constitutional requirement that repealing or amendatory statute refer to statute repealed or amended, to repeal or amendment by implication, 5 A.L.R.2d 1270.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 1-3-8 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 18

Gonzalez v. Miller

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-10-22

Snippet: statutory construction, now codified at OCGA § 1-3-8, 12 explaining that “the state is not subject to

In the Matter of Nevada Michael Tuggle

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-09-04

Snippet: 8 for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2 is disbarment. The maximum

SUMTER COUNTY v. MORRIS

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-12-19

Snippet: roads” as those terms are defined in OCGA § 32-1-3 (8) and (24). The Court of Appeals also cited these

In the Matter of Nevada Michael Tuggle

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-09-06

Snippet: penalty for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2 is disbarment, and the maximum

In re Caldwell

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-05-21

Citation: 814 S.E.2d 674

Snippet: maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.2, 1.3, 8.1, or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum

In re Garcia

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-04-16

Citation: 813 S.E.2d 591

Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 8.1, or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum

In re Moore

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-03-05

Citation: 811 S.E.2d 343

Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2 is disbarment, and the maximum

in the Matter of Joel David Myers

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-10-05

Snippet: The maximum sanction for violating Rules 1.3, 8.4, 1.15 (I) and 1.15 (II) is disbarment; the maximum

In re Berlon

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-16

Citation: 295 Ga. 361, 759 S.E.2d 866, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 1518, 2014 WL 2718810, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 501

Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 8.1, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum

in the Matter of Michael Rene' Berlon

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-16

Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 8.1, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum

In re Murray

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-03-28

Citation: 295 Ga. 71, 757 S.E.2d 134, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 693, 2014 WL 1266265, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 257

Snippet: correct that Murray’s violations of Rules 1.1,1.2,1.3, 8.1 and 8.4 may be punished by disbarment. Moreover

in the Matter of Edward T. Murray

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-03-28

Snippet: correct that Murray’s violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 8.1 and 8.4 may be punished by disbarment. Moreover

In re Davis

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-02-27

Citation: 290 Ga. 857, 725 S.E.2d 216, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 575, 2012 WL 603273, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 212

Snippet: maximum punishment for a single violation of Rules 1.3, 8.1 or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, while a single

In Re Warnock

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-06-27

Citation: 711 S.E.2d 726, 289 Ga. 456, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1932, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 510

Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 8.1 and 8.4(a)(4) is disbarment and the maximum sanction

In Re Tew

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-04-18

Citation: 710 S.E.2d 747, 289 Ga. 128, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1287, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 282

Snippet: The maximum penalty for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 8.4(a)(4) and 1.15(I) is disbarment. Tew acknowledged

Cobb County School District v. Barker

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-05-03

Citation: 518 S.E.2d 126, 271 Ga. 35, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1774, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 370

Snippet: a rebuttable presumption. 1998 Ga. L. 1304, § 1. [3] 8. Based on the evidence presented, I find that

Board of Regents of University System of Georgia v. Tyson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-06-07

Citation: 404 S.E.2d 557, 261 Ga. 368, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 288

Snippet: state or its agencies are not so applicable (OCGA § 1-3-8), the Attorney General concluded that since the

Roberts v. Wicker

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1957-05-16

Citation: 99 S.E.2d 84, 213 Ga. 352, 1957 Ga. LEXIS 381

Snippet: another alumninum [sic] strip, which is approximately 1 3/8 inches wide. This alumninum [sic] strip is approximately