O.C.G.A.
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.
Statute text
There is created a body corporate and politic to be known as the Georgia Lottery Corporation which shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the state, and not a state agency, and a public corporation. Venue for the corporation shall be in Fulton County.
History
(Code 1981, § 50-27-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 3173, § 2.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Georgia Lottery Corporation is not a state "agency" entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity under the facts and law of an action brought to have certain lottery games declared illegal and unconstitutional. Jackson v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 228 Ga. App. 239, 491 S.E.2d 408 (1997).
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).
Cited in Kyle v. Ga. Lottery Corp., 304 Ga. App. 635, 698 S.E.2d 12 (2010); Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 498, 816 S.E.2d 438 (2018), cert. denied, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 175 (Ga. 2019).
Notes of Decisions
Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 718 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 2011).
· cites it 6× “A review of the law creating GLC establishes that it is an instrumentality of the state, OCGA § 50-27-4, and that its main purpose is to generate net proceeds to be “used to support improvements and enhancements for educational purposes and programs and that such net proceeds…”
Jackson v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 491 S.E.2d 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “) OCGA § 50-27-4. In Thomas , our Supreme Court examined the issue of sovereign immunity from tort as it applies to a hospital authority *240 and “distinguished] the state and its political subdivisions from instrumentalities created by the state to carry out various functions.”
English v. Fulton Cnty. Bldg. Auth., 597 S.E.2d 626 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “15 In so holding, we were persuaded by the language of the statute that created the GLC, OCGA § 50-27-4, which specifically stated that it was an instrumentality of the state, not a state agency, and the line of cases construing the status of “instrumentality’ to be outside of…”
Kyle v. Georgia Lottery Corp., 698 S.E.2d 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The trial court concluded that GLC was immune to plaintiffs’s claims because it is a state “instrumentality,” because no written contract with it had been alleged, and because no statute authorizes a waiver of sovereign immunity for equity claims against the State.”
Patel v. Ga. Lottery Corp., 830 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “4 Patel requests, in the event we determine that additional proceedings are necessary, that the case be transferred back to the State Court of Fulton County where it was originally filed.”
Amusement Leasing, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 10× “,3 and OCGA § 50-27-4 of the Education Act provides in relevant part: “There is created a body corporate and politic to be known as the Georgia Lottery Corporation which shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the state, and not a state agency, and a public corporation.”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. S&A 1488 Mgmt., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 50-27-4. Accordingly, “a superior court order reviewing a decision of the GLC does not fall within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), and an application for discretionary .”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Inam Int'l (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 50-27-4. Accordingly, “a superior court order reviewing a decision of the GLC does not fall within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), and an application for discretionary review .”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Georgia Lottery Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 50-27-4. Accordingly, a superior court order reviewing a decision of the Georgia Lottery Corporation “does not fall within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1),” and an application for discretionary review is not required.”
Lucky Bucks, LLC v. Ruta Inc (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “]” OCGA § 50-27-4. Accordingly, a superior court order reviewing a decision of the Georgia Lottery Corporation “does not fall within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1),” and an application for discretionary review is not required.”
Seaborn Enter. 2, LLC v. United Gaming L.L.C. (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) & (b), “[a]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, the State Board of Education, auditors, state and local administrative agencies, and lower courts by certiorari or de novo…”
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.