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
© 2024 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 AllGeorgia Appeals Court Cancels Hearing in Election Interference Case Against Trump
3 minute readJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 2Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 3Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 4Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 5Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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