Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The 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.)
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 82 C.J.S., Statutes, §§ 62 et seq., 311.
- 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.
Total Results: 18
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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