O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 50-27-2 (2019)

Legislative findings and declarations

✓ 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

It is found and declared by the General Assembly: (1) That net proceeds of lottery games conducted pursuant to this chapter shall be used to support improvements and enhancements for educational purposes and programs and that such net proceeds shall be used to supplement, not supplant, existing resources for educational purposes and programs; (2) That lottery games are an entrepreneurial enterprise and that the state shall create a public body, corporate and politic, known as the Georgia Lottery Corporation, with comprehensive and extensive powers as generally exercised by corporations engaged in entrepreneurial pursuits; (3) That lottery games shall be operated and managed in a manner which provides continuing entertainment to the public, maximizes revenues, and ensures that the lottery is operated with integrity and dignity and free of political influence; and (4) That the Georgia Lottery Corporation shall be accountable to the General Assembly and to the public through a system of audits and reports.

History

Code 1981, § 50-27-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 3173, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Georgia Lottery Corporation entitled to assert sovereign immunity. - Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) is entitled to assert sovereign immunity as a bar to a suit under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. IX, and the Georgia Tort Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., because under the Georgia Lottery for Education Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-27-1 et seq.,

the purpose, function, and management of the GLC are indelibly intertwined with the state in a manner that qualifies the GLC for the protection of sovereign immunity as a state instrumentality; thus, the GLC must be classified as an instrumentality of the state to which sovereign immunity applies. Kyle v. Ga. Lottery Corp., 290 Ga. 87, 718 S.E.2d 801 (2011).

Tampering. - Defendant’s act of leaning over a store counter, tearing lottery tickets from the ticket’s dispenser without paying for the tickets, and scratching the tickets to see if the defendant had won a prize fell within the plain meaning of the term ‘‘tampering’’ in O.C.G.A. § 50-27-27, in that the defendant’s act forever changed the odds of winning for paying customers and directly influenced the po-

tential winning of lottery prizes by future customers. If the defendant’s activity did not constitute ‘‘tampering’’ within the meaning of § 50-27-27, the express intent of the Georgia General Assembly in § 50-27-2 that state lottery revenues be maximized and that the lottery be operated with integrity and dignity would be frustrated. Doe v. State, 290 Ga. 667, 725 S.E.2d 234 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2012 · leading case: Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 718 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 718 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 6× “” OCGA § 50-27-2 (1). Furthermore, GLC “shall be governed by a board of directors composed of seven members to be appointed by the Governor,” OCGA § 50-27-5 (a), and its net proceeds are distributed directly to the State treasury.”
Doe v. State, 725 S.E.2d 234 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 50-27-2 (3). It is with this express legislative intent in mind that we must discern the plain meaning of the term “tampering” in OCGA § 50-27-27.”
Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Sumner, 529 S.E.2d 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 50-27-2 (3). If we were to construe the sentence “any person, pursuant to an appropriate judicial order, shall be paid the prize to which a winner is entitled” as allowing us to ignore the rest of the lottery statute, as Sumner suggests, the rest of the statute would…”
Jackson v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 491 S.E.2d 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 50-27-2 (2); 50-27-4; 50-27-9. The Act defined the scope of permissible games to be operated by the GLC; permitted the GLC’s governing board to adopt regulations, policies, and procedures regulating the conduct of lottery games, including the type of games to be played;…”
Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corp. (In Re Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc.), 266 B.R. 544 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 50-27-2. On the Tuesday following any fiscal week, which ran from Sunday through Saturday, GLC electronically sweeps the Instant Total 1 and On-line Total from the account.”
Riddle v. State, 687 S.E.2d 165 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 50-27-2. 6 OCGA § 50-27-24 (c) (2).”
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.