O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-35-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as ‘‘The Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965.’’

History

Ga. L. 1947, p. 1118, § 1; Ga. L. 1951, p. 116, § 1; Ga. L. 1965, p. 298, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article surveying developments in Georgia local govern-

ment 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 now 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 492 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. 1997).
City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 492 S.E.2d 193 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 8× “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.”
City of Fort Oglethorpe v. Boger, 480 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 4× “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).”
Nelson v. Strickland, 911 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2025). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 36-35-1 et 7 seq. The Home Rule Act generally gives municipalities the legisla- tive power to adopt “clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local government” that are not inconsistent with the Constitution or…”
Sadler v. Nijem, 306 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “298, now OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq. (Code Ann. §§ 69-1015—69-1022), which authorized municipalities to amend their charters by action of the municipal governing authority or by petition and referendum, provided such amendments shall be invalid if provision has been made therefor by…”
Camden Cnty., Georgia v. Robert C. Sweatt Jr. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “City of Claxton, our Supreme Court held as a matter of first impression that the petition and referendum procedure set forth in the Municipal Home Rule Act, OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., “applies only to amendments to municipal charters.”
Hummings v. City of Woodbine, 319 S.E.2d 862 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 2× “II and III; OCGA § 36-35-1 et seq., and we intimate nothing in this opinion regarding that subject.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.