Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-82-74 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-82-74 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-82-74

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 82 information not found

ARTICLE 3 REVENUE BONDS

36-82-74. Notice to district attorney or Attorney General of resolution authorizing revenue bonds.

When any governmental body desires to issue revenue bonds under this article, the officer or officers of such governmental body, within six months after the passage of the resolution authorizing the bonds, shall, in writing, notify the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the governmental body is located of the fact that such resolution has been passed by the governing body and of the intention of the governmental body to issue such bonds. The service of notice shall be personal upon the district attorney and shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the resolution of the governing body of the governmental body authorizing the bonds. If the district attorney is absent from the circuit, such notice shall be served in person upon the Attorney General.

(Ga. L. 1937, p. 761, § 10; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- See Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S.E.2d 592 (1942).

Effect of failure of solicitor general (now district attorney) to file petition.

- When the solicitor general (now district attorney), or the Attorney General, fails to file a validation petition within the 20-day period, any petition filed, without a prior order of court directing such filing, is a nullity. State v. Smallwood, 103 Ga. App. 400, 119 S.E.2d 297 (1961).

State a necessary party in intervention in validation proceeding.

- On appeal by intervening taxpayers and citizens from a judgment of the superior court overruling their objections and validating the bonds, the state is a necessary and indispensable party, and, it appearing that the state had not been made a party to the bill of exceptions or served with a copy of the bill of exceptions, the writ of error is properly dismissed. Darby v. City of Vidalia, 75 Ga. App. 804, 44 S.E.2d 454 (1947).

Memorandum of agreement establishing valuation method part of lease agreement.

- Because a memorandum of agreement establishing the valuation methodology to be used in assessing ad valorem taxes on a leasehold estate was referenced by the lease and dictated the methodology to be used to value a corporation's leasehold estate for ad valorem tax purposes, it constituted an integral part of the lease agreement and was properly before the trial court; in a transaction in which revenue bonds will be paid through lease proceeds, all agreements relating to the lease are properly within the trial court's jurisdiction. Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 317 Ga. App. 345, 730 S.E.2d 113 (2012).

Cited in Dade County v. State, 77 Ga. App. 139, 48 S.E.2d 144 (1948).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, §§ 352, 353.

C.J.S.

- 64A C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 2135, 2136, 2139 et seq.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-82-74

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Savage v. State of Georgia, 297 Ga. 627 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 28 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 774 S.E.2d 624

...The notice of the hearing in this case was sufficient. (b) Pellegrino argues next that the Authority did not fulfill its duty under OCGA § 36-82-75 because it failed to show why the stadium project bonds should not be validated. When, as required by OCGA § 36-82-74, a government body notifies the appropriate district attorney that it desires to issue revenue bonds, the district attorney must file a petition setting out details of the bonds, including their amount and purpose, in the superior court of the county issuing the bonds....
Copy

Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Akridge, 425 S.E.2d 637 (Ga. 1993).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 5, 1993 | 262 Ga. 773, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 480

...herefor.' (Emphasis supplied.)" Charlton County, 253 Ga. at 209 (quoting Miller v. Columbus, 229 Ga. 234, 236 (190 SE2d 535) (1972)). [1] The December 1988 validation proceeding followed the statutory requirements of the Revenue Bond Law. See OCGA §§ 36-82-74 to 36-82-83....
Copy

Woodham v. City of Atlanta, 657 S.E.2d 528 (Ga. 2008).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 11, 2008 | 283 Ga. 95, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 416

...s that the bond validation proceeding was the exclusive forum for adjudication of Woodham's claims. We disagree. Under the Georgia Revenue Bond Law, all revenue bonds "shall be validated in the superior court in the manner set forth in Code Sections 36-82-74 through 36-82-83." OCGA § 36-82-73....
...[2] We note that in DeKalb School Dist., supra at 880, 881, and 882, 440 S.E.2d 185, the language of Art. VIII, Sec. VI, Par. I(b) is incorrectly stated as "necessary and incidental," as opposed to "necessary or incidental." We thus take this opportunity to correct those inadvertent scrivener's errors. [3] OCGA §§ 36-82-74 through 36-82-83 prescribe the manner in which a validation proceeding must be conducted when a governmental agency desires to issue revenue bonds.