Judicial Review of Action by Corporation or Chief Executive Officer

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. State Government
  4. Lottery for Education
  5. Bona Fide Coin Operated Amusement Machines
  6. General Provisions
  7. Judicial Review of Action by Corporation or Chief Executive Officer

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. Appeal by an affected person from all actions of the corporation or chief executive officer shall be to the Superior Court of Fulton County. The review shall be conducted by the court and shall be confined to the record.
  2. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the corporation or chief executive officer as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact committed to the discretion of the corporation or chief executive officer. The court may affirm the decision of the corporation or chief executive officer in whole or in part; the court shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the corporation's or chief executive officer's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
    1. In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
    2. In excess of the statutory authority of the corporation or chief executive officer;
    3. Made upon unlawful procedures;
    4. Affected by other error of law;
    5. Not reasonably supported by substantial evidence in view of the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole; or
    6. Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

(Code 1981, §48-17-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 1521, § 3; Code 1981, §50-27-76, as redesignated by Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 1-1/HB 487.)

The 2013 amendment, effective April 10, 2013, redesignated former Code Section 48-17-7 as present Code Section 50-27-76; substituted "corporation or chief executive officer" for "commissioner" throughout this Code section; deleted "or the superior court where the owner has the machines located at the time that the action has been taken by the commissioner" following "Fulton County" at the end of the first sentence of subsection (a); and substituted "corporation's or chief executive officer's" for "commissioner's" near the end of the introductory paragraph of subsection (b).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2013, p. 37, § 3-1/HB 487, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that: "(b) If any section of this Act is determined to be unconstitutional by a final decision of an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or by the trial court of competent jurisdiction if no appeal is made, with the exception of subsection (g) of Code Section 50-27-78 and Section 2-1 of this Act, this Act shall stand repealed by operation of law.

"(c) This Act is not intended to and shall not be construed to affect the legality of the repair, transport, possession, or use of otherwise prohibited gambling devices on maritime vessels within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia. To the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was lawful prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall not be made illegal by this Act; and to the extent that such repair, transport, possession, or use was prohibited prior to the enactment of this Act, it shall remain prohibited." As of July 2020, no such decision has been issued.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Inaccurate interpretation of statute and tablet useage in restaurant.

- Georgia Lottery Corporation erred in interpreting O.C.G.A. § 50-27-70(2)(A) to conclude that a tablet used by customers at tables in restaurants was a "coin-operated amusement machine" or COAM; although the premium component of the machines required payment, and the operation of the premium component depended on the skill of the player, the tablets could be used without payment for other purposes, including to order and pay for food and play certain other games. Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 498, 816 S.E.2d 438 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1520, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 175 (Ga. 2019).

Intra-agency appeal procedure must be followed.

- Licensee's appeal was properly dismissed for failing to exhaust the required administrative remedy available as the Georgia Lottery Commission rules required that affected persons must exhaust the intra-agency appeal procedure, and the failure to do so operated as a waiver of the person's appeal rights. Amazing Amusements Group, Inc. v. Wilson, 353 Ga. App. 256, 835 S.E.2d 781 (2019).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.