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

O.C.G.A. § 50-27-76 (2019)

Judicial review of action by corporation or chief executive officer

✓ 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

(a) Appeal by an affected person from all actions of the corporation or chief executive officer shall be to the Superior Court of Fulton County.

The review shall be conducted by the court and shall be confined to the record. (b) The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the corporation or chief executive officer as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact committed to the discretion of the corporation or chief executive officer. The court may affirm the decision of the corporation or chief executive officer in whole or in part; the court shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the corporation’s or chief executive officer’s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the corporation or chief executive officer; (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Not reasonably supported by substantial evidence in view of the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

History

Code 1981, § 48-17-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1521, § 3; Code 1981, § 50-27-76, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 1-1/HB 487.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 3-1/HB 487, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: ‘‘(b) If any section of this Act is determined to be unconstitutional by a final decision of an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or by the trial court of competent jurisdiction if no appeal is made, with the exception of subsection (g) of Code Section 50-27-78 and Section 2-1 of this Act, this Act shall stand repealed by operation of law.

‘‘(c) This Act is not intended to and shall not be construed to affect the legality of the repair, transport, possession, or use of otherwise prohibited gambling devices on maritime vessels within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia. To the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was lawful prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall not be made illegal by this Act; and to the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was prohibited prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall remain prohibited.’’ As of May 2021, no such decision has been issued.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Inaccurate interpretation of statute and tablet useage in restaurant. - Georgia Lottery Corporation erred in interpreting O.C.G.A. § 50-27-70(2)(A) to conclude that a tablet used by customers at tables in restaurants was a ‘‘coin-operated amusement machine’’ or COAM; although the premium component

of the machines required payment, and the operation of the premium component depended on the skill of the player, the tablets could be used without payment for other purposes, including to order and pay for food and play certain other games. Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 498, 816 S.E.2d 438 (2018), cert.

denied, No. S18C1520, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 175 (Ga. 2019). Intra-agency appeal procedure must be followed. - Licensee’s appeal was properly dismissed for failing to exhaust the required administrative remedy available as the Georgia Lottery Commis-

sion rules required that affected persons must exhaust the intra-agency appeal procedure, and the failure to do so operated as a waiver of the person’s appeal rights. Amazing Amusements Group, Inc. v. Wilson, 353 Ga. App. 256, 835 S.E.2d 781 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media LLC., 816 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media LLC., 816 S.E.2d 438 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “5 *441 The appeal to superior court was "confined to the record" and was decided by the court without a jury pursuant to OCGA § 50-27-76 (a). The parties agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the issue was purely one of law.”
Amazing Amusements Grp., Inc. v. Robert E. Wilson (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “as well as the statutory judicial review afforded by OCGA § 50-27-76. “all actions of the [GLC]” to the superior court, so the administrative remedy exhaustion requirement does not apply.”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Daljeet Singh (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 14× “14 OCGA § 50-27-76 (a); see OCGA § 50-27-102 (c) (5) (providing that “[t]he decision of the chief executive officer may be appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County”).”
Arc Gaming & Tech., LLC v. Hiram Imp, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “” (Emphasis added.) But that statute does not create a right to appeal, but merely clarifies venue.”
United Gaming, LLC v. Georgia Lottery Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “11 OCGA § 50-27-76 (a) (1)-(6). Here, when the GLC allegedly arbitrarily recanted its approval of United Gaming’s transfer of the two licenses, United Gaming was subject to a decision by the GLC that was ripe for judicial review per OCGA § 50-27-76 (a).”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Daljeet Singh (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “14 OCGA § 50-27-76(a); see OCGA § 50-27-102(c)(5) (providing that “[t]he decision of the chief executive officer may be appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County”).”
Georgia Lottery Corp. v. 1100 Shorter Dollar, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “1 OCGA § 50-27-76 (a) grants to a person affected by an action of Georgia Lottery Corporation or its chief executive officer the right to appeal to the Superior Court of Fulton County.”
Lucky Fortune, LLC v. Georgia Lottery Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “757 , 758- 759 ( 849 SE2d 531 ) (2020); see also OCGA §§ 50-27-76 (b), 50-27-102 (d) (5). “When this Court reviews a superior court’s order in an administrative proceeding, our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior court’s decision but whether the record…”
— 50-27-76(a) — 1 case
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Daljeet Singh (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “14 OCGA § 50-27-76(a); see OCGA § 50-27-102(c)(5) (providing that “[t]he decision of the chief executive officer may be appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County”).”
— 50-27-76(b) — 1 case
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Daljeet Singh (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “14 OCGA § 50-27-76(a); see OCGA § 50-27-102(c)(5) (providing that “[t]he decision of the chief executive officer may be appealed to the Superior Court of Fulton County”).”
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.