High Court Ends War Between City and County Over Industrial Park Land
Justice Keith Blackwell wrote a unanimous opinion saying the 40-year-old constitutional amendment creating Fulton Industrial District was void from the start, so it can't stop the city from annexing the land. With millions of tax dollars on the table, the county attorney said she is looking to the Legislature next.
March 04, 2019 at 03:05 PM
3 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court has ended years of legal battling between the city of Atlanta and Fulton County over who has the right to tax a 1.4-acre lot in an industrial park on the western side of the city.
The land in question has far greater importance than the boarded-up bank building that sits there.
The city won.
With a unanimous opinion written by Justice Keith Blackwell, the high court upheld Atlanta's 2017 annexation of a parcel in the Fulton County Industrial District. The county sued, alleging the annexation was prohibited by a 1979 local constitutional amendment creating the industrial park.
The opinion affirmed Fulton County Superior Court Judge Gail Tusan, who ruled the amendment was void from its inception 40 years ago because it violated the “single subject” rule of the Georgia Constitution. The rule says a constitutional amendment can make only one change at a time unless different actions are related.
The 1979 amendment creating the Fulton Industrial District also contained a provision about school taxes.
“Simply put, because the 1979 amendment provided that there could be no overlap between the District and the City, the taxation of properties in the City did not (and could not) relate to the creation of the District,” Blackwell said. “This complete absence of relatedness falls far short of the relation required by the single subject rule. As a result, the trial court correctly concluded that the 1979 amendment was never properly adopted because its enactment violated the single subject rule.”
This was the second time the dispute had come before the Supreme Court. In the first round, the high court ruled the county's appeal premature, since the city had not yet carried out the annexation. So the county sued again, after the city went through with annexing the land. The county's lawyers argued that, if Atlanta could establish the right to annex that one piece of land, the city could theoretically annex—and tax—the entire industrial park. So millions of potential tax dollars annually forever were riding on the question.
Robert Ashe III of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore argued the case for the city of Atlanta. “The City is very pleased the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the City's 2017 annexation,” Ashe said Monday by email. “The City has been fighting for several years to win the right for Fulton property owners to freely choose annexation, and this ruling vindicates the City's efforts. It's not every day the Supreme Court strikes down a local constitutional amendment as having been unconstitutionally enacted, so this was a fascinating and fun issue to work on for the City.”
County Attorney Patrise Perkins-Hooker said Monday by email, “The County will govern its actions by the ruling and adjust the location of the parcel in question accordingly.”
Asked to elaborate, she added, “The parcel the city sought to annex will be placed within the city limits of the City of Atlanta for all purposes in Fulton County records.”
However, Perkins-Hooker said she expects the county's concerns about protecting the rest of the industrial park land to be addressed by the General Assembly this year. The case is Fulton County v. City of Atlanta, No. S181156.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readGeorgia's Governor Details Spending Plans but Not His Top Priority of Lawsuit Reform
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250