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 partCarley, Justice

I concur in the affirmance of the trial court’s ruling invalidating the “benefits” ordinance and the trial court’s dismissal of all damages claims. However, upon consideration of the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1965 and the Georgia Constitution of 1983,1 cannot agree with the reversal of the trial court’s ruling invalidating the “registry” ordinance and the affirmance of the trial court’s dismissal of the claims related to the “sexual orientation” ordinances. Accordingly, I concur in Divisions 2 and 4 and dissent to Divisions 1 and 3.

1. The registry ordinance begins with many requirements for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Atlanta v. HudginsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  2. Delaney v. Superior Fast FreightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  3. Giles v. GibsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  4. Sims v. SimsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
  5. Grovenstein v. Effingham CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1992

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API