Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Atlanta v. McKinney

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 14, 1995No. S94A1610, S94X1612Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSears, Justice

I agree with the majority’s decision that the registry ordinance and the anti-discrimination ordinance are valid exercises of the authority of the municipality. Majority at (1) and (3). However, I would hold that the benefits ordinance is also valid under the Home Rule Act.

The power granted municipalities by the Home Rule Act does “not include the power to take any action affecting the private or civil law governing private or civil relationships, except as is incident to the exercise of an independent governmental power.” OCGA § 36-35-6 (b). However, the benefits ordinance under…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Insurance Co. of North America v. CooleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API