Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant appealed the trail court's dismissal of her action contesting the outcome of the August 10, 2010 Stewart County primary election in which she was an unsuccessful candidate. Appellant filed the election contest on August 18, the general election took place on November 2, and the candidate who defeated appellant in the primary was certified as the winner of the election. The court held that appellant's appeal was moot where an election contest challenging the results of a primary election became moot after the general election had taken place and where appellant did not quickly seek statutorily-sanctioned supersedeas and/or an expedited appeal.

The City of Atlanta ("city"), which required the payment of hotel occupancy taxes pursuant to OCGA 48-13-50 et seq., brought an action against Hotels.com and on-line travel companies (collectively, "OTCs"), which book hotel rooms and make other travel arrangements for customers who access their services over the internet, alleging that the retail room rate was the appropriate amount upon which to base the hotel occupancy tax and seeking injunctive relief, as well as back taxes. At issue was whether the trial court erred when it determined that the "rent" for occupying a city hotel room was the room rate paid by the consumer rather than the negotiated wholesale rate between the OTCs and the hotel; when it issued the injunctive relief; when it voided those portions of the OTCs' contracts which provided that hotel occupancy taxes would be collected and remitted based on the negotiated wholesale rate; and when it held that the city did not have a remedy for back taxes. The court affirmed the trial court and held that the retail room rate was the taxable amount of "rent" under the city's ordinance where the consumer could not obtain the right to occupy the room without paying the retail room rate charged by the OTCs. The court also held that the trial court did not err in issuing its injunctive order where there was no governmental authority in the city, or in the state, that required any OTCs to collect hotel occupancy taxes. The court further held that, because the injunction provided for the proper collection and remittance of the city's hotel occupancy taxes should the OTCs elect to continue to act as third-party tax collectors, the trial court's error in reaching a determination that the contracts at issue were void was improper but the error was effectively moot and provided no basis for removal. The court finally held that the city failed to identify a benefit it had conferred on the OTCs and, accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the OTCs was sustained.