Hooters of Augusta, Inc. v. Nicholson
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- Hart v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1982
- Transportation Insurance v. El Chico Restaurants, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1999
- Autoflex Leasing, Inc. v. Manufacturers Auto Leasing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2000
- Kemp v. City of ClaxtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.