CopyCited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 28, 2025 | 320 Ga. 624
...to be a party to the case, not a
third party whose right a plaintiff seeks to vindicate without any legal author-
ity for doing so. See, e.g., Lasseter v. Simpson,
78 Ga. 61, 65 (3 SE 243) (1886);
Dent v. Merriam,
113 Ga. 83 (38 SE 334) (1901); OCGA §
23-3-122 (b) (1)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 26, 2016 | 785 S.E.2d 861
...w, a majority of the Court
of Appeals affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, holding, first, that the trial
1
The trial court did not reach defendants’ argument that Fuciarelli was not entitled
to sue under the TPAFCA. See OCGA §
23-3-122 (i)....
...State or local government.2 These monies are to be recouped in a civil action
brought by the State, through the Attorney General or a designee. They can also
be recovered in a suit brought by a private person on behalf of the government
with government approval. In this regard, OCGA §
23-3-122 (b) (1) provides:
Subject to the exclusions set forth in this Code section, a civil action
under this article may also be brought by a private person upon
written approval by the Attorney General....
...By its plain terms then, subsection (b) (1) is applicable to any civil action
brought by a private person “under this article,” i.e., Article 6 of Chapter 3 of
Title 23. Because the subsection allowing for taxpayer retaliation claims,
OCGA §
23-3-122 (l),3 lies within “this article” there can be only one
2
OCGA §
23-3-121 (a).
3
This subsection provides:
(1) Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary
to...
...4
conclusion – the Attorney General’s approval is required before a taxpayer
retaliation claim is filed. After all, the words “this article” can only mean “this
article,” which includes OCGA §
23-3-122 (l).
The Court of Appeals concluded that the General Assembly must have
used the words “this article” in OCGA §
23-3-122 (b) (1) by mistake....
...In fact, although the legislature set the statute of limitations for
TPAFCA claims at six years, see OCGA §
23-3-123, it expressly carved out a
three-year limitation period for taxpayer retaliation claims brought under OCGA
7
§
23-3-122 (l) (3). Thus, the full text of the TPAFCA demonstrates that the
legislature knew how to exempt taxpayer retaliation claims from the broader
requirements of the Act and did so when it was so inclined.4
Fuciarelli also argues that in enacting OCGA §
23-3-122 (l), the
legislature looked to its federal counterpart, 31 USCA § 3730 (h), for direction;
that, except for the provision requiring Attorney General approval, the statutes
are extremely similar; and that, therefore, the legislature co...
...“Absent clear evidence that a contrary meaning was intended by
the legislature,” Judicial Council of Ga. v. Brown & Gallo, supra, they can only
be read to mean “this article” – and that includes taxpayer retaliation actions
brought under OCGA §
23-3-122 (l).
Our ruling is not complicated....
