Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 3-2-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 3-2-3 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 3-2-3

TITLE 3 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Section 2. State Administration and Enforcement, 3-2-1 through 3-2-36.

ARTICLE 1 ADMINISTRATION

3-2-3. Powers and duties of commissioner as to denial, suspension, or cancellation of licenses or permits generally; promulgation of rules and regulations as to conversion of standards of measurement to English system and labeling of distilled spirits.

In addition to his or her other duties and responsibilities to administer this title, the commissioner may:

  1. Deny, suspend, or cancel any license or permit required under this title if:
    1. The license application is not filed in good faith or is filed by some person as a subterfuge for any other person;
    2. Any applicant for a license or permit or any licensee or permit holder under this title willfully fails to comply with any provisions of this title or with rules and regulations adopted by the commissioner; or
    3. Any person to whom a license or permit has been issued is no longer engaged in the dealing of alcoholic beverages or no longer qualifies as a licensee or permit holder under this title.

      Before any denial, suspension, or cancellation of a license or permit granted pursuant to this title, the applicant, licensee, or permit holder shall be afforded a hearing in the manner and subject to the conditions and procedures established by this chapter and the commissioner. The commissioner shall notify an applicant, licensee, or permit holder in writing of the denial, suspension, or cancellation by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery to the last known address of the applicant, licensee, or permit holder appearing in the commissioner's files or by personal service upon the applicant, licensee, or permit holder by an authorized agent of the commissioner. Upon cancellation of a license or permit for cause under this paragraph, there shall be no renewal or reissuance of the canceled license or permit for a period of two years from the date of cancellation;

  2. In the event that the license of any person is canceled by the commissioner under the authority of this title, hold the bonds of the person for a period of three years against any liabilities accruing as a result of the business of the person whose license is canceled. In no event shall the surrender of any bond release any liability;
  3. Enter into agreements with appropriate authorities of other states who enforce the alcoholic beverage laws thereof, to exchange information relative to the manufacture, receipt, sale, use, or transportation of alcoholic beverages;
  4. Promulgate rules and regulations which he or she deems necessary for the conversion from the metric system of measurement to the equivalent English measurement in United States gallons and subdivisions of gallons and shall compute all tax rates at the equivalent English measurement; and
  5. Promulgate rules and regulations, not inconsistent with federal laws or regulations, requiring informative labeling of all distilled spirits offered for sale in this state.

(Code 1933, § 5A-303, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1573, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, p. 1269, § 5; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1463, §§ 1, 8; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 3; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3; Ga. L. 2015, p. 317, § 2/SB 63.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 16, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section is applicable with respect to notices delivered on or after July 1, 2000.

In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Law reviews.

- For comment, "Retail Liquor Licenses and Due Process: The Creation of Property Through Regulation," see 32 Emory L.J. 1199 (1983).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Municipal ordinance which provides for automatic loss of a liquor license upon cessation of business is not inconsistent with this title because it permits cancellation without notice and hearing, allegedly required by paragraph (1) of O.C.G.A. § 3-2-3, because no hearing is required where revocation of license is expressly required by ordinance. City Council v. Crump, 251 Ga. 594, 308 S.E.2d 180 (1983) (decided prior to 1982 amendment).

Constitutionality of revocation procedures.

- Liquor license revocation procedures which provide for a hearing, preceded by advance notice setting forth charge forming basis for revocation, are sufficient to comport adequately with due process mandates. Page v. Jackson, 398 F. Supp. 263 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Due process required for revocation of license.

- Liquor license holder has sufficient property interest in holding license to date of its automatic termination that revocation of license must be accompanied by rudimentary due process protections. Liquor licenses may not be revoked during the period of their effectiveness without such protections. Page v. Jackson, 398 F. Supp. 263 (N.D. Ga. 1975) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

The primary right to revoke a license lies with the commissioner, and this right may be used only for cause and after hearing. Crummey v. State, 83 Ga. App. 459, 64 S.E.2d 380 (1951) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Limitation on regulation by authorizing statutes.

- Even though the commissioner is given authority to make reasonable rules and regulations for the enforcement and administration of former Code 1933, Ch. 58-10 (see now O.C.G.A. § 3-2-3), the commissioner could not, by regulation, make penal and punish therefor as a misdemeanor something which is not made penal under the law itself, but could only enforce regulation by suspension or cancellation of license of offending party or parties. Columbus Wine Co. v. Sheffield, 83 Ga. App. 593, 64 S.E.2d 356 (1951) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Denial and cancellation of liquor licenses are actions of public official subject to court review.

- In the absence of some remedial review prescribed by law, equity is available to review alleged abuses of discretion by administrative licensing authority. Blackmon v. Alexander, 233 Ga. 832, 213 S.E.2d 842 (1975) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Advertising, §§ 8, 15. 45 Am. Jur. 2d, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 1, 2, 18 et seq., 106 et seq., 229, 251, 279, 356 et seq., 464.

14C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Intoxicating Liquors, § 48.

C.J.S.

- 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 160, 161, 173, 174, 230, 231.

ALR.

- Power to limit the number of intoxicating liquor licenses, 124 A.L.R. 825; 163 A.L.R. 581.

Revocation of liquor license of one person as ground for refusal of license to another, 153 A.L.R. 836.

Right to hearing before revocation or suspension of liquor license, 35 A.L.R.2d 1067.

Right to withdraw application to procure or to transfer liquor license, 73 A.L.R.2d 1223.

Revocation or suspension of liquor license because of drinking or drunkenness on part of licensee or business associates, 36 A.L.R.3d 1301.

Sale or use of narcotics or dangerous drugs on licensed premises as ground for revocation or suspension of liquor license, 51 A.L.R.3d 1130.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 3-2-3 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 20

In THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY ORMAN MCCALEP (Two Cases)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06

Snippet: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I) and (II), 1.16, 3.2, 3.5 (d), 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.4 (a) (1) and (4), and

In THE MATTER OF CYNTHIA ANN LAIN (Five Cases)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-04-19

Snippet: 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (a), 1.16 (d), 3.1 (b), 3.2, 3.3 (a), 3.5 (d), and 8.4 (a) (4), of the Georgia

In re Levine

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

Citation: 811 S.E.2d 349

Snippet: in Bar Rule 4-102 (d) : 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.4, 8.1, and 8.4 (a) (4). The maximum

Cottrell v. Atlanta Development Authority, D/B/A Invest Atlanta

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-03-16

Snippet: provided in paragraphs (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.7), (4), (4.1), (4.2), (4

COTTRELL Et Al. v. ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Et Al.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-03-16

Citation: 297 Ga. 1, 770 S.E.2d 616, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 179

Snippet: provided in paragraphs (2.1), (2.2), (3), (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.7), (4), (4.1), (4.2), (4

In re Mann

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-09-23

Citation: 293 Ga. 664, 748 S.E.2d 914, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2920, 2013 WL 5303249, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 720

Snippet: Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3,1.4,1.5,1.16,3.2,3.3 (a) (1), 3.5 (c), and9.3.1 See Bar Rule 4-102

In re Cummings

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-10-01

Citation: 291 Ga. 654, 732 S.E.2d 755, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 2892, 2012 WL 4475848, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 754

Snippet: disbarred for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3, 8.4 (a) (1), (4), and 9.3). Accordingly, it

Whitehead v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-06-01

Citation: 695 S.E.2d 255, 287 Ga. 242, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1769, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 412

Snippet: Paul S. Milich, Georgia Rules of Evidence, §§ 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 (2d ed.2009). See also Hunter, 202 Ga.App. at

In Re Toler

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-01-25

Citation: 687 S.E.2d 833, 286 Ga. 412, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 165, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 88

Snippet: practice of law for one year for violating Rules 1.3, 3.2, 3.5(c), and 8.4(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional

In Re Eaton

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-10-19

Citation: 685 S.E.2d 279, 286 Ga. 28, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3314, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 633

Snippet: Eaton has violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, 3.3, 8.4(a)(1), 8.4(a)(4) and 9.3, all of the Georgia

In Re Henry

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-10-05

Citation: 684 S.E.2d 624, 285 Ga. 871, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3156, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 496, 2009 WL 3161719

Snippet: violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(I), 1.15(II), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.5(c), 5.5(a), 8.1, 8.4 and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules

Taylor v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-11-21

Citation: 653 S.E.2d 477, 282 Ga. 693, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3627, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 852

Snippet: defenses of mental incapacity by insanity, OCGA § 16-3-2,[3] and delusional compulsion, OCGA § 16-3-3.[4] Counsel

R AND J MURRAY, LLC v. Murray County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-11-21

Citation: 653 S.E.2d 720, 282 Ga. 740, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3595, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 858

Snippet: of [Georgia’s] environment.” DCA Rule 110-4-3-.03 (2), (3). Although a local government may consider

In Re McNaull

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-11-05

Citation: 653 S.E.2d 46, 282 Ga. 686, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3372, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 841

Snippet: violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, *47 1.15(I) and (II), 3.2, 3.4, 8.1, 8.4 and 9.3 of the Rules of Professional

Fulton County v. Galberaith

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-06-25

Citation: 647 S.E.2d 24, 282 Ga. 314, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 1950, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 467

Snippet: institution or business. Fulton County Code §§ 3.3.2, 3.3.19. Thus, the definition of "sign" at issue here

In re Toler

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-02-10

Citation: 276 Ga. 228, 576 S.E.2d 898, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 128

Snippet: petition, Respondent admits violating Rules 1.3, 3.2, 3.5 (c) and 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional

Pruitt v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-02-04

Citation: 559 S.E.2d 470, 274 Ga. 708, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 357, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 60

Snippet: about the child molestation claim under OCGA § 24-3-2. 3. Pruitt also challenges the trial court's ruling

Sawnee Electric Membership Corp. v. Georgia Public Service Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-03-19

Citation: 544 S.E.2d 158, 273 Ga. 702, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 937, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 253

Snippet: legislative goals of the GTESA as set forth in OCGA § 46-3-2.[3] Accordingly, because there are no reasons, weighty

Goldrush II v. City of Marietta

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-03-17

Citation: 482 S.E.2d 347, 267 Ga. 683, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 874, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 99

Snippet: Cobb County, supra, 242 Ga. 592. See also OCGA §§ 3-2-3 (1) and 3-3-2 (a), and Marietta City Code §§ 8-20-160;

Dismuke v. C & S TRUST CO.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-09-05

Citation: 407 S.E.2d 739, 261 Ga. 525, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 400

Snippet: remarrying his former wife. See OCGA § 19-3-2 (3). Relying on OCGA § 19-3-2 (3) and case law interpreting it,1