CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 14, 1998 | 270 Ga. 56, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3565
...Defendants answered the complaint and counterclaimed, asserting, inter alia, that the State violated their constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures, improperly gained control of GFI through receivership, and committed acts of waste. In so doing, defendants challenged the constitutionality of OCGA §
10-5-21, which confers immunity on the Commissioner of Securities, asserting that that statute denies them "equal access to the courts through counterclaim." Following a trial on the merits, the court determined that GFI operated for approximately...
...Womack has failed to rebut the presumption that the court and receiver have faithfully discharged their duties. See Northeast Factor & Discount Co. v. Mortgage Investments,
107 Ga.App. 705, 710,
131 S.E.2d 221 (1963). 5. Finally, Womack asserts that OCGA §
10-5-21, [4] which confers immunity on the Commissioner of Securities, is unconstitutional insofar as it does not permit the filing of a counterclaim against the Commissioner....
...We disagree. Immunity from suit is a legislative prerogative. Sikes v. Candler County,
247 Ga. 115, 117(2),
274 S.E.2d 464 (1981). It follows that the legislature can prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the State consents to be sued; and that OCGA §
10-5-21 cannot be deemed unconstitutional simply because it prevents Womack from filing a counterclaim....