Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-35-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 35 information not found

ARTICLE 3 COUNCIL OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES

36-35-3. Adoption of ordinances, rules, and regulations; amendment of charters and amendment or repeal of ordinances, rules, and regulations by petition and referendum.

  1. The governing authority of each municipal corporation shall have legislative power to adopt clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or regulations relating to its property, affairs, and local government for which no provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Constitution or any charter provision applicable thereto. Any such charter provision shall remain in force and effect until amended or repealed as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. This Code section, however, shall not restrict the authority of the General Assembly, by general law, to define this home rule power further or to broaden, limit, or otherwise regulate the exercise thereof. The General Assembly shall not pass any local law to repeal, modify, or supersede any action taken by a municipal governing authority under this Code section, except as authorized under Code Section 36-35-6.
  2. Except as provided in Code Section 36-35-6, a municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home rule power, amend its charter by following either of the following procedures:
    1. Municipal charters may be amended by ordinances duly adopted at two regular consecutive meetings of the municipal governing authority, not less than seven nor more than 60 days apart. A notice containing a synopsis of the proposed amendment shall be published in the official organ of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation or in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation once a week for three weeks within a period of 60 days immediately preceding its final adoption. The notice shall state that a copy of the proposed amendment is on file in the office of the clerk or the recording officer of the municipal governing authority and in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation for the purpose of examination and inspection by the public. The recording officer of the municipal governing authority shall furnish anyone, upon written request, a copy of the proposed amendment. No amendment under this paragraph shall be valid to change or repeal an amendment adopted pursuant to a referendum as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection or to change or repeal a local Act of the General Assembly ratified in a referendum as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection or to change or repeal a local Act of the General Assembly ratified in a referendum by the electors of the municipal corporation unless at least 12 months have elapsed after such referendums. No amendment under this paragraph shall be valid if provision has been made therefor by general law; or
      1. Amendments to charters or amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section may be initiated by a petition, filed with the governing authority of the municipal corporation, containing, in cases of municipal corporations with a population of 5,000 or less, the signatures of at least 25 percent of the electors registered to vote in the last general municipal election; in cases of municipal corporations with a population of more than 5,000 but not more than 100,000, at least 20 percent of the electors registered to vote in the last general municipal election; and in cases of municipal corporations with a population of more than 100,000, at least 15 percent of the electors registered to vote in the last general municipal election. The petition shall specifically set forth the exact language of the proposed amendment or repeal. The governing authority shall determine the validity of such petition within 50 days of its filing with the governing authority. In the event that the governing authority determines that such petition is valid, it shall be the duty of such authority to issue the call for an election for the purpose of submitting such amendment or repeal to the registered electors of the municipal corporation for their approval or rejection. Such call shall be issued within one week after the determination of the validity of the petition. The governing authority shall set the date of the election as provided in Code Section 21-2-540. The governing authority shall cause a notice of the date of the election to be published in the official organ of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation or in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation once a week for two weeks immediately preceding such date. The notice shall also contain a synopsis of the proposed amendment or repeal and shall state that a copy thereof is on file in the office of the clerk or the recording officer of the municipal governing authority and in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation, for the purpose of examination and inspection by the public. The recording officer of the municipal governing authority shall furnish anyone, upon written request, a copy of the proposed amendment. If more than one-half of the votes cast on the question are for approval of the amendment or the repeal, the same shall become of full force and effect; otherwise it shall be void and of no force and effect. The expense of the election shall be borne by the municipal corporation. It shall be the duty of the governing authority to hold and conduct such election. The election shall be held under the same laws and rules and regulations as govern special elections of the municipal corporation, except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph. It shall be the duty of the governing authority to canvass the returns and to declare and certify the result of the election. It shall be the further duty of the governing authority to certify the result thereof to the Secretary of State. A referendum on any such amendment or repeal shall not be held more often than once each year. No amendment under this subparagraph shall be valid if provision has been made therefor by general law.
      2. In the event that the governing authority determines that the petition is not valid, it shall publish in explicit detail the reasons why such petition is not valid. Such publication shall be in the official organ of the county of the legal situs of the municipal corporation or in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation, in the week immediately following the date on which the petition is declared to be not valid. In any proceeding in which the validity of the petition is at issue, the tribunal considering such issue shall not be limited by the reasons assigned.
      3. The sponsor of a petition authorized by this paragraph shall obtain copies of all official petitions from the clerk of the governing authority. The clerk of the governing authority shall approve all petitions as to form. The clerk of the governing authority shall provide a place on each form for the person collecting signatures to provide his or her name, street address, city, county, state, ZIP Code, and telephone number and to swear that he or she is a resident of the municipality affected by the petition and that the signatures were collected inside the boundaries of the affected municipality. The collection of signatures for the petition shall begin on the day the clerk of the governing authority provides official copies to the sponsor of the petition. A petition authorized by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall not be accepted by the governing authority for verification if more than 60 days have elapsed since the date the sponsor of the petition first obtained copies of the petition from the clerk of the governing authority. Any petition being circulated pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph on July 1, 1989, shall be filed with the clerk of the governing authority by not later than July 11, 1989. The clerk of the governing authority shall, within seven days, provide the sponsor with official petitions. The sponsor shall have 60 additional days after obtaining official petitions to collect the remaining number of required signatures. Nothing in this subparagraph shall invalidate otherwise valid signatures collected on or before July 1, 1989.
  3. Any other provisions of this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, subsection (b) of this Code section shall not apply to any city-county consolidated government in existence on January 1, 1976, and any such city-county consolidated government shall not be authorized to amend its consolidated government charter pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section.

(Ga. L. 1965, p. 298, § 3; Ga. L. 1966, p. 296, § 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 1429, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1584, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 36; Ga. L. 1998, p. 295, § 3.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "The Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965 (this chapter)," see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 333 (1967). For article as to the power of Georgia local governments to regulate the trades and occupations of its citizens, see 9 Ga. L. Rev. 115 (1974). For article, "Extraterritorial Power in Georgia Municipal Law," see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1977). For article surveying legislative and judicial developments in Georgia local government law for 1978-79, see 31 Mercer L. Rev. 155 (1979). For note on the validity of population statutes in Georgia, see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 533 (1966). For comment, "Making Debt Pay: Examining the Use of Property Tax Delinquency as a Revenue Source," see 62 Emory L.J. 217 (2012).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

General Consideration

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions prior to enactment of this Code section and under Ga. L. 1927, p. 99 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Municipal corporation is a public corporation, being a subordinate agent of the state, exercising governmental functions in a certain community; and while an ordinance enacted by such governmental agency may in that sense be a law of the state, it is not a law of the state as is contemplated in the Constitution defining the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Maner v. Dykes, 183 Ga. 118, 187 S.E. 699 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 22-103).

County's election authority.

- County's method of not counting abstentions by county commissioners, and therefore not considering abstentions as either affirmative or negative votes, was within the county's authority; thus, a citizen challenging the method of counting votes was not entitled to declaratory relief. Merry v. Williams, 281 Ga. 571, 642 S.E.2d 46 (2007).

This chapter does not provide sole method by which General Assembly may amend city charter so as to change the 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) (see O.C.G.A. Ch. 35, T. 36).

Subsection (b).

- Procedure for petition and referendum in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 applies only to amendments to municipal charters. Kemp v. City of Claxton, 269 Ga. 173, 496 S.E.2d 712 (1998).

Municipality not estopped from attacking local law passed after charter granted.

- When a local law vitally affecting the rights and powers granted to a municipality by charter is passed subsequently to the granting of the charter, the municipality is not estopped from attacking the provisions of the local law on the ground that the provisions are unconstitutional and void. City of Moultrie v. Moultrie Banking Co., 175 Ga. 738, 165 S.E. 814 (1932) (decided under Ga. L. 1927, p. 99).

O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 is inapplicable when a municipality's obligation to make available to customers sufficient information about electricity rates is at issue. City of Commerce v. Duncan & Godfrey, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 337, 277 S.E.2d 266 (1981).

City charter provision on term limits for police officers prevailed over police department personnel manual provisions covering the dismissal of police department employees. City of Buchanan v. Pope, 222 Ga. App. 716, 476 S.E.2d 53 (1996).

Quo warranto granted to remove a city attorney improperly appointed by the mayor.

- Writ of quo warranto challenging a city mayor's appointment of a city attorney was properly granted because a council member's abstention on a motion to delegate the power of appointment to the mayor was no vote at all; therefore, there was no tie vote on the motion, and the mayor was not authorized to vote in its favor, leaving authority to appoint an attorney with the council, in accordance with the city charter. Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437, 774 S.E.2d 668 (2015).

Cited in Dodson v. Graham, 462 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1972); Jackson v. Inman, 232 Ga. 566, 207 S.E.2d 475 (1974); Savage v. City of Atlanta, 242 Ga. 671, 251 S.E.2d 268 (1978); DeClue v. City of Clayton, 246 Ga. App. 487, 540 S.E.2d 675 (2000); Beaman v. City of Peachtree City, 256 Ga. App. 62, 567 S.E.2d 715 (2002).

Powers of Municipalities

Municipality is a creature of the legislature deriving the municipality's powers and privileges from that body through the municipality's charter. The municipality's ordinances are laws, but only laws of the municipality itself. Maner v. Dykes, 183 Ga. 118, 187 S.E. 699 (1936) (decided under former law).

Municipalities lawfully may exercise powers necessarily implied from powers expressly granted. Goodman v. City of Atlanta, 246 Ga. 79, 268 S.E.2d 663 (1980).

In determining the validity of an ordinance, the court must decide whether the city had the power to enact the ordinance and whether the exercise of the city's power is clearly reasonable. City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161, 454 S.E.2d 517 (1995).

Existence of police power dependent on express grant by state.

- Police power, while it is an attribute of sovereignty and an inherent power of national and state government because the existence of government as well as the social order, security, life, and health of the individual citizen depend upon it, is a power possessed by municipal corporations only if, where, and to the extent there has been an express grant by the state. Palmer v. Hall, 380 F. Supp. 120 (M.D. Ga. 1974), modified, 517 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1975).

Fundamental and substantive changes in city government cannot be made by a municipality under general home rule laws. Bruck v. City of Temple, 240 Ga. 411, 240 S.E.2d 876 (1977).

Authority to enact new charters including drastic changes in city government reserved in General Assembly.

- The General Assembly has reserved the legislative power to enact new charters for existing cities when such charters include drastic changes in the composition and form of city government, and the election and terms of office of the members of the governing authority of cities. Bruck v. City of Temple, 240 Ga. 411, 240 S.E.2d 876 (1977).

Authority to adopt ordinance amending city charter.

- Authority of a municipality to adopt an ordinance amending its city charter cannot be derived from subsection (a), which prohibits the enactment of local ordinances inconsistent with municipal charter provisions. The ordinance must be adopted pursuant to the procedures set out in subsection (b), which establishes one of two methods through which a municipality may amend a municipality's charter without the intervention of the General Assembly. Bruck v. City of Temple, 240 Ga. 411, 240 S.E.2d 876 (1977) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3).

Power to regulate markets and provide reasonable rules for their conduct, looking to the health and safety of a city or community, is a right within the scope of municipal regulation, and the court will not interfere with the exercise of the discretion granted to municipalities upon the ground of unreasonableness, except in a clear case. Jones v. City of Atlanta, 51 Ga. App. 218, 179 S.E. 922 (1935) (decided under former law).

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 the local law 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).

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).

Validity of Ordinances

Ordinance which infringes upon common or statute law is void. Cruise v. City of Rome, 94 Ga. App. 373, 94 S.E.2d 617 (1956).

Reasonableness of ordinance a question of law.

- Ordinances of a municipal body under a power vested in the municipal body are conclusive on the courts unless so unreasonable or oppressive of the rights of the citizen as to constitute an attempted abuse rather than a legitimate use of the power; but the reasonableness of an ordinance is a question of law and municipal ordinances are reviewable by the courts as to reasonableness. If found to be unreasonable, those ordinances will be held void. Cruise v. City of Rome, 94 Ga. App. 373, 94 S.E.2d 617 (1956) (decided under former law).

Legislation by municipal corporation must be put in form of an ordinance, and acts that are done in a ministerial capacity and for temporary purposes may be in the form of a resolution. Allen v. Wise, 204 Ga. 415, 50 S.E.2d 69 (1948) (decided under former law).

Municipal ordinance contravening usual and ordinary rights of a citizen cannot be legally passed unless the power to do so be plainly conferred by valid and competent legislative grant. Jewel Tea Co. v. City Council, 59 Ga. App. 260, 200 S.E. 503 (1938) (decided under former law).

Constitutionality of refusal to allow conduct of particular business.

- Unless a business may be held to be a nuisance per se, an Act allowing a municipality to refuse the conduct of the same, irrespective of its compliance with any regulations adopted for the proper exercise of such business, is violative of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. I, and Art. I, Sec. II, Para. III (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Paras. I and II). Jones v. City of Atlanta, 51 Ga. App. 218, 179 S.E. 922 (1935) (decided under former law).

No power to declare lawful business nuisance.

- Municipality has no authority, by ordinance, to declare a useful and per se perfectly lawful business a nuisance, and provide for the issuance of permits by the city, which may be granted or declined in the discretion of the governing authorities. Jones v. City of Atlanta, 51 Ga. App. 218, 179 S.E. 922 (1935) (decided under former law).

Completeness of annexation statute.

- There is no requirement, statutory or otherwise, that the local annexation statute itself make provisions for the myriad adjustments between the annexed territory and the municipality which the annexation necessitates. Bruck v. City of Temple, 240 Ga. 411, 240 S.E.2d 876 (1977).

Charter amendment needed to abolish city department created by home rule enactment.

- City department created by a home rule enactment, once having achieved charter status, can be abolished only by another home rule charter amendment requiring advertisements in advance and adoption by the council at two consecutive regular meetings as required by subsection (b)(1). Jackson v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 8, 234 Ga. 906, 218 S.E.2d 633 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3).

Ordinance was properly advertised in advance by publishing synopsis of proposed amendment. Jackson v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 8, 234 Ga. 906, 218 S.E.2d 633 (1975).

Requiring corporation to give bond before transporting goods unauthorized.

- City was without authority under the city's charter or the general law to require a corporation to give bond or file a policy of liability insurance as a prerequisite to transporting the corporation's goods from its place of business in an automobile, cart, wagon, or dray. Jewel Tea Co. v. City Council, 59 Ga. App. 260, 200 S.E. 503 (1938) (decided under former law).

Ordinance prohibiting blowing of train whistle.

- Municipal ordinance providing without exception that no person operating a locomotive engine shall blow the whistle thereof within the corporate limits of a city is void as being unreasonable, contrary to public interest, public policy, and the general welfare of the public, when it appears without dispute that the ordinance's application at certain grade crossings within the city would prohibit the operator of a locomotive engine from giving adequate warning to persons who may be in, near, or about to enter a place of danger upon the tracks where the locomotive engine is operating. Cruise v. City of Rome, 94 Ga. App. 373, 94 S.E.2d 617 (1956) (decided under former law).

Waste removal ordinance assessing fees for the collection, removal, or disposal of solid wastes against a property owner for apartment units which were neither occupied nor habitable was not authorized by the city charter. Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 231 Ga. App. 382, 499 S.E.2d 157 (1998).

Claim not valid.

- City did not assert a valid breach of ordinance claim arising out of a corporation's failure to pay the city additional sums that the city claimed were owed due to a natural gas billing error as: (1) in order to assert a breach of ordinance claim, the city had to show that the ordinance was validly enacted; (2) the city failed to present any evidence showing that an alleged ordinance setting natural gas billing rates was enacted in conformance with the requirements imposed under Lawrenceville, Ga., City Charter §§ 2.22, 2.29; and (3) the city's claim was, in actuality, simply a claim on an account. City of Lawrenceville v. Ricoh Elecs., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

Disregard of parliamentary rule no basis for annulment or invalidation.

- While municipal governing bodies usually adopt or recognize parliamentary law as their rules of order and proceeding, courts ordinarily will not annul or invalidate an ordinance enacted in disregard of parliamentary rule, provided the enactment is made in the manner required by statute. The rules of parliamentary practice are merely procedural, and not substantive. South Ga. Power Co. v. Baumann, 169 Ga. 649, 151 S.E. 513 (1929) (decided under former law).

Racial and sexual quotas in contracts void.

- City ordinance requiring that certain percentages of contracts be awarded on the basis of race and sex conflicts with the legislative intent and purpose embodied in the bid requirement in the city charter that contracts be awarded without favoritism to obtain reasonable quality at the lowest cost, and is therefore void. Georgia Branch, Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 253 Ga. 397, 321 S.E.2d 325 (1984).

Provision for full-time fire department.

- Proposed municipal charter amendment which would require provision of fire protection and that such fire protection be provided by a city fire department, with full-time, paid personnel, employed by the city, does not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. III. Sadler v. Nijem, 251 Ga. 375, 306 S.E.2d 257 (1983).

Adoption of occupation tax on businesses within corporate limits was not authorized by O.C.G.A. Ch. 35, T. 36. City of Tunnel Hill v. Ridley, 183 Ga. App. 486, 359 S.E.2d 184, cert. denied, 183 Ga. App. 905, 359 S.E.2d 184 (1987).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions prior to the enactment of this Code section are included in the annotations for this Code section.

City police officer may not arrest one for violation of city ordinances when the police officer is outside city limits. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 490 (decided under former law).

Amount of license fees or taxes.

- Licensing power of a municipality is granted by the charter creating the municipality; the amount of license fees or taxes a municipality may levy on a particular business is not regulated by statute, but appellate courts have ruled that a municipal tax on an occupation must be reasonable. 1954-56 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 493 (decided under former law).

City may establish personnel department and merit board without the necessity of special Acts of the General Assembly. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-310.

Joint purchase of riot control equipment.

- All counties and those municipalities having the requisite charter authority may enter into cooperative agreements with one another for the purchase and use of equipment to be employed in jointly administered riot control programs. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-141.

Governing authority of affected municipality or county has authority to control boxing events in the authority's jurisdiction. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-167.

Effect of failure of prior election on acts validly conducted.

- Municipality may treat an election ordered as a result of the failure of a prior election as a continuation of that prior election, recognizing those acts validly conducted. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-23.

Change of election date.

- Municipality is not empowered to amend a municipal charter by ordinance with respect to date of a municipal general election. 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 77-33.

City has home rule power to amend a city's charter by ordinance so as to remove from the charter a limitation on the millage rate which the city may use in levying ad valorem taxes. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-19.

Municipal home rule power not violated by World Congress Center's regulations.

- O.C.G.A. § 10-9-14 empowering the Geo. L. Smith II Georgia World Congress Center Authority to regulate activities on the sidewalks and streets immediately adjacent to the World Congress Center's projects during an event period do not violate the City of Atlanta's home rule power under subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3 or Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. III(c). 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U94-4.

City authorized to charge rental fee to state.

- City of Atlanta may charge the Board of Regents for permitting a fiber optic cable to lie under city owned streets based on city code provisions enacted pursuant to the city's home rule power. 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-14.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Initiative and Referendum, §§ 6, 24 et seq., 33 et seq., 48. 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, §§ 30 et seq., 90.

C.J.S.

- 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 30, 112 et seq., 385 et seq.

ALR.

- Power of municipal councils to punish for contempt, 8 A.L.R. 1586.

Validity of municipal ordinance prohibiting or regulating keeping of livestock, 32 A.L.R. 1372; 40 A.L.R. 566.

Delegation by municipality of its powers as to building regulations, 43 A.L.R. 834; 46 A.L.R. 88.

Validity of statute or ordinance relating to place of sale of food, 52 A.L.R. 669.

Power to forbid or restrict repair of wooden building within fire limits, 56 A.L.R. 878.

Constitutionality of city manager or commission form of municipal government, 67 A.L.R. 737.

Power to include in municipal contract or proposal therefor, provisions designed to relieve local unemployment, or encourage local industries, 81 A.L.R. 255.

Implied power of municipality to operate nursery, quarry, gravel pit, or other sites for production of material needed for carrying out powers expressly conferred upon it, 104 A.L.R. 1342.

Matters pertaining to police department as within exclusive control of municipalities under home rule charters, 105 A.L.R. 259.

Home rule charter as affecting power of legislature in respect of municipal taxation, 106 A.L.R. 1202.

Validity, construction, and application of ordinances prohibiting or regulating "curb service," 111 A.L.R. 131.

Power of municipality to impose chain store license tax, 111 A.L.R. 596.

Statute relating to municipal fire departments as interference with local self-government, 141 A.L.R. 903.

Validity of municipal regulation of solicitation of magazine subscriptions, 9 A.L.R.2d 728.

Conclusiveness of declaration of emergency in ordinance, 35 A.L.R.2d 586.

What constitutes requisite majority of members of municipal council voting on issue, 43 A.L.R.2d 698.

Power of municipality or other governmental unit to make contract or covenant exempting or releasing property from special assessment, 47 A.L.R.2d 1185.

Municipal power as to billboards and outdoor advertising, 58 A.L.R.2d 1314.

Validity of municipal regulation of storage or accumulation of lumber, straw, trash, or similar inflammable material, 64 A.L.R.2d 1040.

Ordinance providing for suspension or revocation of state-issued driver's license as within municipal power, 92 A.L.R.2d 204.

Power of municipal corporation to enact civil rights ordinance, 93 A.L.R.2d 1028.

Validity of municipal ordinance regulating time during which restaurant business may be conducted, 53 A.L.R.3d 942.

Validity and construction of curfew statute, ordinance, or proclamation, 59 A.L.R.3d 321; 83 A.L.R.4th 1056.

Construction and application of ordinances relating to unrestrained dogs, cats, or other domesticated animals, 1 A.L.R.4th 994.

Power of municipal corporation to legislate as to Sunday observance, 10 A.L.R.4th 246.

Validity, construction, and effect of juvenile curfew regulations, 83 A.L.R.4th 1056.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-35-3

Total Results: 12  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161 (Ga. 1995).

Cited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 14, 1995 | 454 S.E.2d 517

...The Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965 grants a city the legislative power to adopt ordinances "relating to its property, affairs, and local government for which no provision has been made by general law and which are not inconsistent with the Constitution." OCGA § 36-35-3 (a) (1993)....
Copy

Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 9, 1998 | 269 Ga. 173, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 812

...Plaintiffs then submitted two petitions to amend by referendum the April 7, 1997, resolution, and to amend a resolution of February 17, 1997, which resolved not to oppose the Georgia Central Railway's proposal to close the crossings. The City Clerk refused to accept the petitions or approve the form, contending that OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2), authorizes a referendum only if it affects the city charter, and because the resolutions enacted by the Mayor and Council did not affect the city charter, no petition for referendum could lie. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) entitled them to initiate petitions for referendums to amend or repeal these resolutions....
...erendum and granted plaintiffs' motion to add the City Clerk as a party defendant so that plaintiffs could pursue mandamus. In a subsequent order, the court refused to issue a writ of mandamus. Although the court agreed with the plaintiffs that OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) allowed them to file petitions for referendums to amend resolutions of this kind, upon review of the proposed petitions the court determined that mandamus was not appropriate because the plaintiffs were attempting to enact original legislation by popular vote, a power the court concluded was not authorized by OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2)....
...new action seeking, inter alia, a writ of mandamus to compel the City Clerk to accept the petitions and approve their form. The court granted the writ after concluding that the City Clerk was obligated to accept and approve the petitions under OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2)(C)....
...In S97A1698, Kemp and his fellow plaintiffs appeal the court's refusal to enjoin the City from eliminating the railroad crossings until just compensation had been paid. They also appeal the court's ruling that their petitions did not properly seek to amend the resolutions under OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2)....
...*715 S97A1884. 1. We first address the appeal from the most recent order. The City contends that the court erred in granting mandamus because the resolutions at issue did not affect the City's charter and the petitions were therefore unauthorized. OCGA § 36-35-3(b) states that "a municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home rule power, amend its charter by following either of the following procedures," set forth in subdivisions (1) and (2). [2] OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2)(A) provides: "Amendments to charters or amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section may be initiated by a petition, filed with the governing authority of...
...gulation enacted by the Mayor and Council. The City urges that the petition and referendum procedure is available only to amend the city charter, or repeal an amendment to the charter, not to amend the type of resolution at issue here. Although OCGA § 36-35-3 was enacted as part of the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, this is a question of first impression....
...II, Par. II. Prior to the 1954 amendment and the Home Rule Act of 1965, city charters were amendable only by acts of the General Assembly. See Sadler, supra; Phillips v. City of Atlanta, 210 Ga. 72, 77 S.E.2d 723 (1953). The two procedures of OCGA § 36-35-3(b) were enacted to relieve the General Assembly of its earlier burden of separately amending each and every city charter in the state....
...The legislative intent will be effectuated even if some language must be eliminated. Maples v. City of Varnell, 244 Ga. 163, 164, 259 S.E.2d 94 (1979). The language upon which the superior court relied is the reference to "amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations," found in OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2)(A). All of OCGA § 36-35-3(b) is prefaced by a statement that what follows are the methods by which a municipal corporation may "amend its charter." This also shows that the petition and referendum provision is intended to be available only when the proposed amendment is intended to affect a city charter. Further, when examined in the context of the structure of OCGA § 36-35-3, the very concept of home rule suggests that the provisions of (b)(2) apply only to charter amendments....
...Municipal home rule power is a delegation of the General Assembly's legislative power to the municipalities. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. II; Cooper v. City of Gainesville, 248 Ga. 269, 270, 282 S.E.2d 322 (1981); Plantation Pipe Line Co. v. City of Bremen, 227 *716 Ga. 1, 6(1), 178 S.E.2d 868 (1970). OCGA § 36-35-3(a) specifies that the delegation of legislative power is to "[t]he governing authority," which is the Mayor and Council. See Savage v. City of Atlanta, 242 Ga. 671, 674-675(1), 251 S.E.2d 268 (1978). Under an interpretation of OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) that would allow the electorate to petition for a referendum on all ordinances and resolutions, the electorate would be exercising legislative power. As we must strictly construe the grant of legislative power to the governing authority, we must reject plaintiffs' argument that the electorate can directly exercise such general legislative power. The petition procedure of OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) applies only to amendments to municipal charters....
...The superior court refused to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the City Clerk to accept and approve the form of the petitions that proposed amendments to the resolutions. The court determined that although plaintiffs did have the right to use the petition and referendum mechanism of OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) to amend ordinances and resolutions that did not affect the city charter, the proposed petitions would adopt resolutions contrary to the ones already passed and could not be considered "amendments." As the procedure set forth in OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(2) is available only for proposed amendments to the city charter, and the resolutions at issue do not affect the charter, a writ of mandamus was not warranted....
...S97A1698; judgment reversed in Case No. S97A1884. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] Plaintiffs oppose this resolution because they contend the purpose of the April 7, 1997, resolution was merely to effectuate the January 16, 1990, resolution. [2] OCGA § 36-35-3(b)(1) pertains to amending the charter by ordinances adopted by the municipal governing authority and is not applicable here....
Copy

GA. BRANCH, ETC. v. City of Atlanta, 321 S.E.2d 325 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 11, 1984 | 253 Ga. 397

...The MFBE ordinance requiring certain percentages of contracts measured in dollar value be awarded on the basis of race and sex conflicts with the legislative intent and purpose embodied in the bid requirement. Therefore, the ordinance is void. OCGA § 36-35-3 (a)....
Copy

Porter v. City of Atlanta, 384 S.E.2d 631 (Ga. 1989).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 13, 1989 | 259 Ga. 526

...[2] Appellants do not argue and we do not reach the issue of whether newly amended OCGA § 44-1-13, which went into effect after the convictions at issue here, circumscribes or preempts the authority to regulate towing and storage firms. [3] See OCGA § 36-35-6 (b). The power granted in subsections (a) and (b) of Code Section 36-35-3 shall not include the power to take any action affecting the private or civil law governing private or civil relationships, except as is incident to the exercise of an independent governmental power....
Copy

Williams v. the Stats, 315 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2023).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 7, 2023

...18 To begin, we briefly review the history of home rule in Georgia. In 1965, the Georgia legislature first established home rule for local governments, by enacting the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, OCGA § 36-35-3 (b), and simultaneously proposing an amendment to the Georgia Constitution to provide home rule for counties, which was ratified by the state’s voters in 1966....
...That act contains a provision somewhat similar to subparagraph (b) of the Home Rule Paragraph and states that “a municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home rule power, amend its charter by following either of [two] procedures.” OCGA § 30 36-35-3 (b)....
...[a]mendments to charters or amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section may be initiated by a petition, filed with the governing authority of the municipal corporation . . . . OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) (A). In Kemp, we determined that in granting a writ of mandamus to compel consideration of a petition to repeal a city ordinance under the Municipal Home Rule Act, the trial court had erroneously relied upon “the reference to ‘amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations,’ found in OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) (A).” Kemp, 269 Ga. at 176 (1). Reasoning that “the very concept of home rule suggests that the provisions of (b) (2) apply only to charter amendments,” the Court determined that because “[a]ll of OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) is prefaced by a statement that what follows are the methods by which a municipal corporation may ‘amend its charter,’” the introductory language showed “that the petition and referendum provision is intended to be available only when the proposed amendment is intended to affect a city charter.” Id....
...strictly construe the grant of legislative power to the governing authority, [the Court] must reject plaintiffs’ argument that the electorate can directly exercise such general legislative power,” and that “[t]he petition procedure of OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) applies only to amendments to municipal charters.” Id. Because, here, we are construing a completely separate legal provision, the holding in Kemp does not control our decision in this case,22 and we need not consider at this time whether Kemp should be overruled in light of today’s ruling....
...in legislative powers to counties so that the counties would have greater power to manage their own affairs. The General Assembly made a nearly identical provision for Georgia’s municipalities through statutory measures. See OCGA § 36-35-3....
Copy

Merry v. Williams, 642 S.E.2d 46 (Ga. 2007).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 5, 2007 | 281 Ga. 571, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 268

...r repealing the Consolidation Act, the Commission may adopt clearly reasonable ordinances, resolutions, or regulations which are not inconsistent with any applicable local law or charter provision. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, § II, Par. I(a); OCGA § 36-35-3(a); City of Buchanan v....
...ioners not be counted as affirmative votes, the Rules of Procedure provide that they not be counted as negative votes. In this regard, the Rules are not inconsistent with the Consolidation Act. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, § II, Par. I(a); OCGA § 36-35-3(a); Ga....
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

...0% of the voters of the City. The petition read as follows: "The undersigned, registered voters in the last general municipal election of the City of Valdosta, Georgia, petition the City to amend the Valdosta City Charter as provided by Georgia Code Section 36-35-3 (b) (2) (A) (Code Ann....
...tain professional firefighting and prevention services, through the City's Municipal Fire Department, which shall be composed of full-time paid personnel who are and shall be employees of the City of Valdosta.'" Within the time provided by law [OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) (B) (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 general law. OCGA § 36-35-3 (Code Ann....
Copy

Jones v. Boone, 297 Ga. 437 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 774 S.E.2d 668

...See generally H.G. Brown Family, L.P. v. City of Villa Rica, 278 Ga. 819 (1) (607 SE2d 883) (2005) (“A municipality has no inherent power; it may only exercise power to the extent it has been delegated authority by the state.”); see also OCGA § 36-35-3 (a) (delegation of legislative power is to the municipality’s governing authority, that is, the mayor and council)....
Copy

Exec. Town & Country Servs., Inc. v. Young, 376 S.E.2d 190 (Ga. 1989).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 15, 1989 | 258 Ga. 860

...Thus, the city code is not unconstitutional on the contended ground that it is preempted by the state law. Moreover, the city has authority to regulate the activities of Town & Country in the exercise of its police powers by virtue of its home-rule power. OCGA § 36-35-3; Art....
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

...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” 7 that are not inconsistent with the Constitution or preempted by state law. OCGA § 36-35-3 (a)....
...ity that wants to reapportion its electoral districts “shall by ordinance amend its char- ter.” OCGA § 36-35-4.1 (b). That ordinance must be “duly adopted at two regular consecutive meetings of the municipal governing au- thority,” OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (1), and the city must publish notice of the proposed amendment beforehand, see id....

Camden Cnty. v. Sweatt, Judge (Ga. 2023).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 7, 2023 | 320 Ga. 733

...To begin, we briefly review the history of home rule in Georgia. In 1965, the Georgia legislature first established home rule for local governments, by enacting the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965, 18 OCGA § 36-35-3 (b), and simultaneously proposing an amendment to the Georgia Constitution to provide home rule for counties, which was ratified by the state’s voters in 1966....
...That act contains a provision somewhat similar to subparagraph (b) of the Home Rule Paragraph and states that “a municipal corporation may, as an incident of its home rule power, amend its charter by following either [of two] procedures.” OCGA § 36-35-3 (b)....
... [a]mendments to charters or amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations adopted pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section may be initiated by a petition, filed with the governing authority of the municipal corporation . . . . OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) (A). In Kemp, we determined that in granting a writ of mandamus to compel consideration of a petition to repeal a city ordinance under the Municipal Home Rule Act, the trial court had erroneously relied upon “the reference to ‘amendments to or repeals of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations,’ found in OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) (A).” Kemp, 269 Ga. at 176 (1). Reasoning that “the very concept of home rule suggests that the provisions of (b) (2) apply only to charter amendments,” the Court determined that because “[a]ll of OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) is prefaced by a statement that what follows are the methods by which a municipal corporation may ‘amend its charter,’” the introductory language showed “that the petition and referendum provision is intended to be available only when the proposed amendment is intended to affect a city charter.” Id....
... strictly construe the grant of legislative power to the governing authority, [the Court] must reject plaintiffs’ argument that the electorate can directly exercise such general legislative power,” and that “[t]he petition procedure of OCGA § 36-35-3 (b) (2) applies only to amendments to municipal charters.” Id. Because, here, we are construing a completely separate legal provision, the holding in Kemp does not control our decision in this case,22 and we need not consider at this time whether Kemp should be overruled in light of today’s ruling....
...41 legislative powers to counties so that the counties would have greater power to manage their own affairs. The General Assembly made a nearly identical provision for Georgia’s municipalities through statutory measures. See OCGA § 36-35-3....

Jones v. Boone (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 320 Ga. 733

...See generally H.G. Brown Family, L.P. v. City of Villa Rica, 278 Ga. 819 (1) (607 SE2d 883) (2005) (“A municipality has no inherent power; it may only exercise power to the extent it has been delegated authority by the state.”); see also OCGA § 36-35-3 (a) (delegation of legislative power is to the municipality’s governing authority, that is, the mayor and council)....