Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-60-25 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-60-25 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-60-25

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 60 information not found

ARTICLE 2 CLERKS OF GOVERNING AUTHORITIES OF MUNICIPALITIES

36-60-25. Certificates of public necessity and convenience and medallions for taxicabs.

  1. Each county and municipal corporation may require the owner or operator of a taxicab to obtain a certificate of public necessity and convenience or medallion in order to operate such taxicab within the unincorporated areas of the county or within the corporate limits of the municipal corporation, respectively, and may exercise its authority under Code Section 48-13-9 to require such owners or operators to pay a regulatory fee to the county or municipal corporation. The General Assembly finds and declares that any county or municipality exercising the powers granted in this Code section is legitimately concerned with the qualifications and records of drivers of taxicabs; with the location, accessibility, and insured state of companies operating taxicabs; and with the safety and comfort of taxicabs. Without limitation, each such county or municipality may exercise the powers granted in this Code section by ordinance to the same extent as the ordinances reviewed by the Georgia Court of Appeals in the case of Hadley v. City of Atlanta, 232 Ga. App. 871, 875 (1998), and each certificate of public convenience and necessity issued under those ordinances shall remain in full force and effect.
  2. Each certificate of public necessity and convenience or medallion issued at any time by a county or municipal corporation shall be fully transferable pursuant to a purchase, gift, bequest, or acquisition of the stock or assets of a corporation to any person otherwise meeting the requirements of the applicable local ordinance. Each such certificate of public necessity and convenience or medallion may be used as collateral to secure a loan and each lending institution making such a loan shall have all rights of secured parties with respect to such loan.
  3. Counties and municipalities which have adopted and have valid ordinances as of July 1, 2014, requiring taxicabs to have certificates of public necessity and convenience or medallions to operate within each such county or municipality may continue to require such certificates or medallions. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no county or municipality shall enact, adopt, or enforce any ordinance or regulation which requires taxicabs to have certificates of public necessity and convenience or medallions to operate within such county or municipality.
  4. No person shall operate a taxicab for the purpose of carrying or transporting passengers for hire unless such person has a for-hire license endorsement or private background check certification pursuant to Code Section 40-5-39. Counties and municipalities shall not impose further licensing requirements or background checks on such persons to operate taxicabs in their jurisdictions.
  5. As used in this subsection, the term "stage" means to stop, park, or otherwise place a vehicle for hire, other than a taxicab, in the loading or curbside area of any business for the purpose of soliciting a fare when such vehicle is not engaged in a prearranged round-trip or prearranged one-way fare. It shall be illegal to stage limousine carriers, as defined in paragraph (5) of Code Section 40-1-151, or ride share drivers, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 40-1-190. A person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
  6. No person shall operate a taxicab for the purpose of carrying or transporting passengers for hire unless such person maintains insurance from an insurance company licensed under Title 33, through a surplus line broker licensed under Title 33, or is qualified as a self-insurer pursuant to Code Section 33-34-5.1.

(Code 1981, §36-60-25, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 677, § 1/HB 519; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1262, § 1/HB 225.)

The 2015 amendment, effective May 6, 2015, deleted "or vehicle for hire" following "taxicab" and deleted "and other vehicles for hire" following "taxicabs" throughout subsection (a); and added subsections (c) through (f).

Law reviews.

- For survey article on local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2008). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 213 (2015). For annual survey on commercial transportation, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 41 (2017).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Impact of 2015 amendment.

- Dismissal of the city taxi cab drivers' complaint for failure to state a cause of action that the 2015 amendment of O.C.G.A. § 36-60-25(a) resulted in an unconstitutional taking and inverse condemnation was affirmed because no law prohibited the city from increasing the Certificates of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPNC) limit and no property interest the drivers may have in their respective CPNCs extended to exclusivity or a limited supply of CPNCs. Abramyan v. State of Ga., 301 Ga. 308, 800 S.E.2d 366 (2017).

No inverse condemnation shown.

- Taxicabs have been the subject of frequent and intensive regulation in the State of Georgia, and O.C.G.A. § 36-60-25(a) does not take business property for a public use, the statute merely requires an already regulated business to adjust its property to the new law. Abramyan v. State of Ga., 301 Ga. 308, 800 S.E.2d 366 (2017).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-60-25

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Abramyan v. State, 301 Ga. 308 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 15, 2017 | 800 S.E.2d 366

...ion of their CPNCs. The State moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that Appellants had failed to state legally cognizable claims; the trial court agreed and granted the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Prior to May 6, 2015, OCGA § 36-60-25 (a) authorized counties and municipalities to require “the owner or operator of a taxicab or vehicle for hire” to obtain a CPNC to operate “such taxicab or vehicle for hire” within the county or municipality, respectively. (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 36-60-25 (a) (2007)....
...ld of administration and regulation over ride share network services . . . and taxi services.” See Ga. L. 2015, p. 1262, § 3. In addition to permitting and regulating ride-sharing programs throughout the State, Act 195 (“the Act”) amends OCGA § 36-60-25 (a) to prohibit counties and municipalities from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any new ordinance requiring taxicabs to procure CPNCs or taxi medallions; the legislature left intact existing regulatory schemes — such as the one enacted by the City of Atlanta — with respect to the regulation of taxicabs, removing any reference to “vehicle for hire” *309from OCGA § 36-60-25 (a).1 See Ga. L. 2015, p. 1262, § 1. Consequently, the City of Atlanta amended its CPNC regulations to reflect its circumscribed authority under OCGA § 36-60-25, including redefining “taxicab” and “vehicle for hire.” In July 2015, Appellants filed a complaint claiming that Act 195 resulted in an unconstitutional taking and inverse condemnation.2 Specifically, Appellants asserted that the...
...at 431, there is no argument here that the Act deprives Appellants of their CPNCs or of their right to engage in the taxicab business; indeed, a CPNC is still necessary to operate a taxicab in the City of Atlanta. Further, even if this Court were to assume arguendo that former OCGA § 36-60-25 (a) and the regulatory scheme enacted by the City of Atlanta — which, together, control the application, transferability, use, renewal, and revocation of CPNCs, as well as permit CPNC holders to use their medallions as collateral for a...