Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965."
(Ga. L. 1947, p. 1118, § 1; Ga. L. 1951, p. 116, § 1; Ga. L. 1965, p. 298, § 1.)
- For article surveying developments in Georgia local government law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (1981). For article, "The United States Supreme Court as Home Rule Wrecker," see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (1982).
Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965 (this chapter) does not provide sole method by which General Assembly may amend a city charter so as to change city boundaries. Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530, 150 S.E.2d 836 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 993, 87 S. Ct. 1307, 18 L. Ed. 2d 337 (1967).
- Local law extending municipal boundaries does not violate the constitutional guarantee of due process of the law because it subjects property owners in the area annexed to taxation by the municipality; nor does the local law deny to such property owners equal protection of the law within the meaning of U.S. Const., amend. 14. Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530, 150 S.E.2d 836 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 993, 87 S. Ct. 1307, 18 L. Ed. 2d 337 (1967).
- Ordinance providing certain insurance benefits for dependents of city employees who qualified and registered as domestic partners, which defined "dependent" consistent with state law, did not violate the Georgia Constitution or the Municipal Home Rule Act. City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 268 Ga. 586, 492 S.E.2d 193 (1997).
Existence of prior statutes permitting enlargement of boundaries does not deprive General Assembly of power to alter and extend municipal boundaries without the consent of the persons affected thereby. Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530, 150 S.E.2d 836 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 993, 87 S. Ct. 1307, 18 L. Ed. 2d 337 (1967).
Both county governments and municipalities may levy taxes for public purposes connected with administration of county and city governments; as a corollary to this principle, it follows that counties and municipalities may appropriate and expend money for such public purpose. Peacock v. Georgia Mun. Ass'n, 247 Ga. 740, 279 S.E.2d 434 (1981).
Former Code 1933, § 69-904 et seq. was a "general law" and provided a method of municipal annexation as contemplated by the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-35-1 et seq.). Niskey Lake Water Works, Inc. v. Garner, 228 Ga. 864, 188 S.E.2d 864 (1972).
Cited in Dodson v. Graham, 462 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1972); Burnley v. Thompson, 524 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1975).
No city acting under this chapter could alter court having jurisdiction over state offenses. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U71-30.
- 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, §§ 109, 110.
Total Results: 4
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-11-03
Citation: 492 S.E.2d 193, 268 Ga. 586, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 4007, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 708
Snippet: at 164 (2). The Municipal Home Rule Act, OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., “indicates that the state does ‘ “not
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-02-03
Citation: 480 S.E.2d 186, 267 Ga. 485, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 355, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 36
Snippet: municipal boundaries and Home Rule Act, OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., does not limit that power). Plaintiffs
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1984-09-06
Citation: 253 Ga. 255, 319 S.E.2d 862, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 883
Snippet: Const., Art. IX, Sec. II, Pars. II and III; OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., and we intimate nothing in this opinion
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1983-09-07
Citation: 306 S.E.2d 257, 251 Ga. 375
Snippet: Rule Act of 1965, Ga. L. 1965, p. 298, now OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq. (Code Ann. §§ 69-1015-69-1022), which authorized