O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-76-1 (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 ‘‘Consumer Choice for Television Act.’’

History

Code 1981, § 36-76-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 719, § 1/HB 227.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on

local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2008).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2021–2023 · leading case: Gwinnett Cnty., Georgia v. Netflix, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gwinnett Cnty., Georgia v. Netflix, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “The statute addresses the process for granting video service franchises, calculating franchise fees, and resolving post-audit disputes between holders and municipalities regarding franchise fees. Id. § 36-76-3, 4, & 6. Defendants argue that comity abstention only applies to…”

Gwinnett Cnty. v. Netflix, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “’” OCGA § 36-76-1. More specifically the issue is whether content providers like the appellees are “cable service provider[s] or [ ] video service provider[s]” under OCGA § 36-76-6 (a) and consequently whether they are required under the Act to secure franchises and pay…”

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.