Notable Opinions: June 24

The Court issued two notable opinions today, the first dealing with the assertion of sovereign immunity among subdivisions of the state, and the second addressing the meaning of revisions to Georgia's anti-SLAPP statute.

City of College Park v. Clayton County

The Supreme Court of Georgia has unanimously ruled that sovereign immunity does not apply to a lawsuit brought by the City of College Park against Clayton County. The case involves a dispute between College Park and Clayton County over their shares of tax revenue from alcohol sold at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Melton held that “the County is not a sovereign over the City, and the City is not a sovereign over the County . . . . Neither entity retains a superior authority over the other that would prevent it from being hailed into a court of law by the other.”

Read the full opinion here

Wilkes & McHugh P.A. Et Al. v. LTC Consulting, L.P. 

Wilkes deals with  the General Assembly’s 2016 revisions to Georgia's anti-SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") statute, OCGA § 9-11- 11.1. Like the revisions to the evidence code, the Court noted that the 2016 amendment to the anti-SLAPP substantially revised the statute to track California’s anti-SLAPP procedure. Thus, Justice Boggs wrote for the Court, "[the Court's] precedents construing the pre-amendment version of § 9-11-11.1 are of limited utility." The new statute significantly changes the procedural mechanism for challenging SLAPPs at the outset of litigation. “First, the court must decide whether the party filing the anti-SLAPP motion . . . has made a threshold showing that the challenged claim is one ‘arising from’ protected activity,” usually meaning that “[t]he critical consideration is whether the cause of action is based on the defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activity.” Second, the Court must decide whether the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on its claim. Only a claim that satisfies both prongs is a SLAPP.

Read the full opinion here


Murder Convictions
S19A0018. BOYD v. THE STATE
S19A0042. VASQUEZ v. THE STATE
S19A0047. BRANT v. THE STATE
S19A0069. HENRY v. SPIVEY
S19A0116. FLEMING v. THE STATE
S19A0166. VENTURINO v. THE STATE
S19A0231. JACKSON v. THE STATE 
S19A0373. TAYLOR v. THE STATE
S19A0418 . BANNISTER v. THE STATE