Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hooters of Augusta, Inc. v. Nicholson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 14, 2000No. A00A0429Published

1DissentAndrews, Presiding Judge

Because Georgia does not provide for a private right of action under 47 USC § 227, I respectfully dissent.

The provision in question states that a person or entity may, “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State,” bring an action based on a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Whether Nicholson’s class action suit is proper turns on the interpretation of “if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State.”

When the language of a statute is plain and susceptible of but one reasonable construction, we have no authority to place a different…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
  2. Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1982
  3. Transportation Insurance v. El Chico Restaurants, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1999
  4. Autoflex Leasing, Inc. v. Manufacturers Auto Leasing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2000
  5. Kemp v. City of ClaxtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998

1 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