Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-35-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-35-1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-35-1

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 35 information not found

ARTICLE 3 COUNCIL OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES

36-35-1. Short title.

This 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.)

Law reviews.

- 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).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

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).

Constitutionality of local law extending municipal boundaries.

- 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).

Constitutionality of Municipal Ordinance.

- 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).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

No city acting under this chapter could alter court having jurisdiction over state offenses. 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U71-30.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, §§ 109, 110.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-35-1

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

City of Fort Oglethorpe v. Boger, 480 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 3, 1997 | 267 Ga. 485, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 355

...The legislature's power to annex property is limited only by the federal and state constitutions. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. I. See also Lee v. City of Jesup, 222 Ga. 530, 531(1), 150 S.E.2d 836 (1966) (state constitution gives legislature power to alter municipal boundaries and Home Rule Act, OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., does not limit that power)....
Copy

Sadler v. Nijem, 306 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 7, 1983 | 251 Ga. 375

...s, duties, qualifications, compensation, and tenure of all municipal officers, agents, and employees...." OCGA § 36-34-2 (Code Ann. § 69-310). In 1965, the General Assembly enacted the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, Ga. L. 1965, p. 298, now OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq....
Copy

City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 492 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 3, 1997 | 268 Ga. 586, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 4007

...This is an appeal from an order of the Fulton County Superior Court declaring the City of Atlanta's 1996 Domestic Partnership Benefits Ordinance unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. IV(a) and (c), [1] and the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., as a special law enacted in an area for which provision has been made by an existing general law....
...and divorce preempts the municipal domestic partnership benefits ordinance. Georgia Const. of 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. IV(a); OCGA § 36-35-6(a); City of Atlanta v. McKinney, supra at 164(2), 454 S.E.2d 517. The Municipal Home Rule Act, OCGA §§ 36-35-1 et seq., "indicates that the state does ` "not wish to give our cities the power to enact a distinctive law of contract."' [Cit.]" City of Atlanta v....
Copy

Nelson v. Strickland, 911 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2025).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 28, 2025 | 320 Ga. 733

...170, 176 (4) (839 SE2d 605) (2020) (applying de novo review to legal question of whether summary judgment was proper in a post-election contest). The City’s authority to enact new election district maps comes from the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965. See OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq....
Copy

Hummings v. City of Woodbine, 253 Ga. 255 (Ga. 1984).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 1984 | 319 S.E.2d 862

...The trial court denied the request for injunctive relief, holding that the city had acted within the authority granted by OCGA § 36-34-5. We have before us a statutory interpretation case. Although they mention it in passing, the parties do not argue “home rule,” 1983 Const., Art. IX, Sec. II, Pars. II and III; OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., and we intimate nothing in this opinion regarding that subject. The parties focus on paragraph (4) of OCGA § 36-34-5, supra....