Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

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

TITLE 3 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Section 3. Regulation of Alcoholic Beverages Generally, 3-3-1 through 3-3-46.

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

3-3-1. Declaration of business of manufacturing, selling, and other dealings in alcoholic beverages as privilege subject to regulatory requirements.

The businesses of manufacturing, distributing, selling, handling, and otherwise dealing in or possessing alcoholic beverages are declared to be privileges in this state and not rights; however, such privileges shall not be exercised except in accordance with the licensing, regulatory, and revenue requirements of this title.

(Code 1933, § 5A-501, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1573, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1118, § 2.)

Editor's notes.

- 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 article on local government law and liquor licensing, see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 1039 (1981). For article, "Lawyers Who Represent Local Governments," see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 58 (1987). For comment on Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1964), overturning the mere privilege doctrine by applying due process requirement to liquor licensing, see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 250 (1968).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Liquor licenses may not be revoked during period of their effectiveness without some rudimentary due process protections.

- A liquor license holder has a sufficient property interest in holding license to date of its automatic termination that revocation of that license must be accompanied by rudimentary due process protections. 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).

Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess. p. 103 does not confer a right upon anyone; it is expressly limited to the granting or refusal of a mere privilege. Hudon v. North Atlanta, 108 Ga. App. 370, 133 S.E.2d 58 (1963) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess. p. 103 applies to issuance and transfer of licenses granting to persons the privilege of engaging in sale of such commodities. Allen v. Carter, 226 Ga. 727, 177 S.E.2d 245 (1970) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

A license to sell spirituous liquors is neither a contract nor a property right in licensee, but a mere permit to do what would otherwise be an offense against the general law. Smith v. Nix, 206 Ga. 403, 57 S.E.2d 275 (1950) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

The authority to regulate traffic in liquor in state is solely within police power of state, and privilege of possessing and selling liquor in state can be obtained only by strict compliance with state's laws regulating traffic and sale of liquors. Akins v. State, 224 Ga. 650, 164 S.E.2d 125 (1968) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Since no one has inherent right to engage in intoxicating liquor business, licensing regulation is not proper subject for enforcement by writ of mandamus. Lindsey v. Hill, 221 Ga. 518, 145 S.E.2d 556 (1965) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Stock agreement not illegal.

- Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 560-2-2-.38 is not shown to be derived from any statute, constitutional provision, or judicial decision apart from the Georgia Department of Revenue's mandate under the Georgia Alcoholic Beverage Code (Act), O.C.G.A. § 3-1-1, to make rules and regulations for the enforcement of the Act and the collection of revenues under the Act; although the parties intended to circumvent Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 560-2-2-.38 by issuing corporate stock to an employee's wife, the stock agreement was not illegal or immoral; thus, a trial court erred in voiding the stock interest of the employee's wife, and summary judgment in favor of the corporation in the wife's action for an accounting, dissolution, and other relief was reversed. Edwards v. Grapefields, Inc., 267 Ga. App. 399, 599 S.E.2d 489 (2004).

Cited in Reeves v. Bridges, 248 Ga. 600, 284 S.E.2d 416 (1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 16A Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, § 276. 45 Am. Jur. 2d, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 18 et seq., 152.

C.J.S.

- 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 21, 24 et seq., 93.

ALR.

- What constitutes manufacturing and who is a manufacturer under tax laws, 17 A.L.R.3d 7.

Warning: 'results' key not found in API response

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

Total Results: 20

Hart v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-06-24

Snippet: ’ and thus we have jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4).”); Henderson v. State, 303 Ga. 241, 244

In the Matter of Deborah Lynn Haklin

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-05-06

Citation: 915 S.E.2d 634, 321 Ga. 530

Snippet: concluded that she had violated Rules 1.2 (a),2 1.3,3 1.4 (a),4 and 1.55 of the GRPC. The maximum sanction

Arnold v. Alexander

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-03-18

Citation: 914 S.E.2d 311, 321 Ga. 330

Snippet: involving extraordinary remedies. See OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4). 14

ANDREANA WILLIAMS, CONSERVATOR v. REGENCY HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17

Citation: 318 Ga. 145

Snippet: 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II-III; OCGA § 15-3-3.1, it is transferred to the Court of Appeals. If

In the Matter of David Carleton Head

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11

Citation: 317 Ga. 512

Snippet: whether Head had withdrawn; and (3) Rules 1.16 (a) (3),3 1.16 (c),4 and 1.16 (d),5 by failing to timely withdraw

In the Matter of Nevada Michael Tuggle

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

Citation: 892 S.E.2d 761, 317 Ga. 255

Snippet: alleged to have violated Rules 1.1,1 1.2 (a),2 1.3,3 1.4,4 1.16 (d),5 8.4 (a) (4),6 and 9.27 of the Georgia

STATE OF GEORGIA v. FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-12-20

Citation: 315 Ga. 319

Snippet: ]” which are reserved to this Court. OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (2) (enacted by Ga. L. 2016, pp. 883, 892,

Mobuary v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-08-24

Citation: 312 Ga. 337

Snippet: 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Pars. II, III; OCGA § 15-3-3.1. 5 See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (Direct appeals are

Mobuary v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-08-24

Snippet: 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Pars. II, III; OCGA §15-3-3.1. 5 See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (Direct appeals are

Gilliam v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-06-21

Citation: 860 S.E.2d 543, 312 Ga. 60

Snippet: Art. VI, Sec. VI, Pars. II and III; OCGA § 15-3- 3.1, we transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-11-02

Citation: 850 S.E.2d 735, 310 Ga. 358

Snippet: 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. II and III; OCGA § 15-3-3.1, appellant’s equal protection argument fails to

CITY OF COLLEGE PARK v. CLAYTON COUNTY

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-24

Citation: 306 Ga. 301

Snippet: finding that the Alcoholic Beverage Code, OCGA § 3-3-1 et seq., permits the City to impose alcoholic beverage

City of Coll. Park v. Clayton Cnty.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2019-06-24

Citation: 830 S.E.2d 179, 306 Ga. 301

Snippet: finding that the Alcoholic Beverage Code, OCGA § 3-3-1 et seq., permits the City to impose alcoholic beverage

Brock v. Hardman

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

Citation: 303 Ga. 729

Snippet: and thus we have jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4). Nevertheless, Brock’s appeal must be dismissed

Brock v. Hardman

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

Citation: 814 S.E.2d 736

Snippet: " and thus we have jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (4). Nevertheless, Brock's appeal must be dismissed

Gallemore v. White

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

Citation: 303 Ga. 209

Snippet: transferred to the Court of Appeals. See OCGA § 15-3-3.1. Because the application for discretionary review

Henderson v. State

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

Citation: 303 Ga. 241

Snippet: jurisdiction in light of the changes imposed by OCGA § 15-3-3.1 on appeals filed after January 1, 2017. We conclude

PETERSON v. PETERSON

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

Citation: 303 Ga. 211

Snippet: 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (3); OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (3); Ga. L. 2016, p. 883, § 6-1 (c). After the

WXIA-TV v. THE STATE

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

Citation: 303 Ga. 428

Snippet: “concerning proceedings in [murder cases].” OCGA § 15-3-3.1 (a) (2).

Henderson v. State

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

Citation: 811 S.E.2d 388

Snippet: jurisdiction in light of the changes imposed by OCGA § 15-3-3.1 on appeals filed after January 1, 2017. We conclude