Savage v. State
Georgia Supreme Court
774 S.E.2d 624 (2015)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
The Atlanta Braves (Braves) had a financing plan for a new stadium in Cobb County (county). Under the plan, the Braves would lease the stadium for at least 30 years and would pay at least $230 million in development costs, plus an annual fee to the Cobb-Marietta Coliseum and Exhibit Hall Authority (authority), a Georgia subordinate public corporation. Revenue bonds to be issued by the authority would raise another $397 million. The authority would pay the bonds’ principal and interest (and administrative costs) from the Braves’ fees and with money received pursuant to its inter-governmental agreement (IGA) with the county. Under the IGA, the county agreed to pay the authority enough to satisfy the bonds. The bonds would be limited obligations of the authority and would be payable only from their pledged security, like the stadium-site assets and IGA payments. Larry Savage, Richard Pellegrino, and Tucker Hobgood (challengers) (plaintiffs) sued Georgia (defendant), objecting to the financing plan. The challengers argued that the IGA was invalid because the authority would be providing only minimal services and the public would not benefit from the stadium for at least the first 30 years. Georgia responded that issuing bonds was a sufficient service to validate the IGA and that the stadium would benefit the public immediately because the county could use it for up to 10 days per year and the stadium would spur nearby revitalization and increase tourism. The challengers further argued the bond plan violated the debt, gratuities, and lending clauses of the Georgia constitution. The trial court confirmed and validated the bond plan. The challengers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nahmias, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.