Cobb County v. Georgia Transmisson Corp.

7 Citing cases

  1. City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com

    285 Ga. 231 (Ga. 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that City stated viable claim for declaratory relief as to applicability of hotel tax ordinance

    Thus, to state a claim for declaratory judgment, a party need only allege the existence of a justiciable controversy in which future conduct depends on resolution of uncertain legal relations. See Higdon, supra, at 85 (city stated claim for declaratory relief where it alleged it was prevented from annexing property by unconstitutional statute); Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367 (4) ( 578 SE2d 852) (2003) (utility properly sought declaratory judgment to resolve constitutionality of ordinance having effect of prohibiting utility's construction of electrical transmission lines); Woodside v. State Hwy. Dept., 216 Ga. 254 (1) ( 115 SE2d 560) (1960) (state highway board stated claim for declaratory judgment where it alleged uncertainty as to duty to provide lateral support for structures on property adjacent to that condemned by state for highway construction). Here, the City seeks relief from its uncertainty as to whether it is authorized to demand access to the OTCs' books and records in order to estimate and assess taxes due under the hotel tax ordinance.

  2. Fowler v. Dowland

    282 Ga. 76 (Ga. 2007)   Cited 34 times
    Recognizing that "legislation which affects substantive rights may only operate prospectively"

    Floyd County v. Scoggins, 164 Ga. 485, 490 ( 139 SE 11) (1927). See also Forsyth County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 280 Ga. 664 (5) ( 632 SE2d 101) (2006); Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367 (2) ( 578 SE2d 852) (2003). Case No. S07A0777

  3. Forsyth County v. Georgia Transmission Corp.

    280 Ga. 664 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to address preemption question, where the trial court did not distinctly rule on the point

    In two recent cases, this Court has held that certain county ordinances violated the home rule provision by effectively infringing on an EPUC's exercise of its statutory power of eminent domain to acquire property for the construction of a high-voltage power line. See Rabun County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 81 (1) ( 575 SE2d 474) (2003); Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367 (1) ( 578 SE2d 852) (2003). In both cases, a county enacted a moratorium on the construction of new high voltage transmission lines.

  4. McClure v. Raper

    594 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    We disagree. Declaratory relief was appropriate to relieve Raper of uncertainty and insecurity with regard to her property rights. See OCGA § 9-4-1; Cobb County v. Ga.Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367 (4) ( 578 S.E.2d 852) (2003). See also Royal v. Royal, 246 Ga. 229 ( 271 S.E.2d 144) (1980) and Maddox v. Superior Rigging Erecting Co., 195 Ga. App. 114 ( 393 S.E.2d 42) (1990) (declaratory judgment actions regarding settlement agreements between the parties).

  5. City, Buford v. Georgia Power Co.

    276 Ga. 590 (Ga. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Finding express preemption of a municipal ordinance placing a one-year moratorium on the construction of electric power substations within 500 feet of residentially zoned property, where a state statute prohibited local ordinances "expanding the power of regulation over any business activity regulated by the Public Service Commission beyond that authorized by charter or general law or by the Constitution" (punctuation omitted)

    Because a county's exercise of eminent domain power is not involved, the home rule provision of the Constitution, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. I(c), is not applicable in this case. Compare Cobb County v. Georgia Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367 ( 578 S.E.2d 852) (2003); Rabun County v. Georgia Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 81 ( 575 S.E.2d 474) (2003). 2.

  6. Dekalb Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Gold

    318 Ga. App. 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that “[o]ur Constitution and statutes do not provide for a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity in declaratory-judgment actions”

    An allegation that the State has violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights is not, in itself, sufficient to avoid the State's sovereign immunity. See Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367, 367(1), 578 S.E.2d 852 (2003) (considering whether petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief asserting county ordinance was unconstitutional); DeKalb County v. Townsend Associates, 243 Ga. 80, 82(4)(b), 252 S.E.2d 498 (1979) (action against county for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus); Chilivis v. Nat. Distrib. Co., 239 Ga. 651, 654(1), 238 S.E.2d 431 (1977) (finding action for declaratory judgment and injunction not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity)..265 Ga. 215, 453 S.E.2d 706 (1995).

  7. U. S. A. Gas v. Whitfield County

    681 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Because there was a bona fide dispute over the applicability of the County's zoning ordinance and over whether the defendants had vested rights to use the tank, and since the County was in a position of uncertainty as to its legal rights, a declaratory judgment was authorized. See City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, 285 Ga. 231, 235 ( 674 SE2d 898) (2009) (applicability of city's hotel tax ordinance was appropriate for resolution by declaratory judgment); Cobb County v. Ga. Transmission Corp., 276 Ga. 367, 368 (4) ( 578 SE2d 852) (2003) (declaratory judgment was proper to resolve constitutionality of ordinance prohibiting utility's construction of electrical transmission lines). The defendants' characterization of the County's action as a vehicle for Fromm's "personal vendetta" is simply speculation.