O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 1-1-2 (2019)

Legislative intent

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statute text

The enactment of this Code is intended as a recodification, revision, modernization, and reenactment of the general laws of the State of Georgia which are currently of force and is intended, where possible, to resolve conflicts which exist in the law and to repeal those laws which are obsolete as a result of the passage of time or other causes, which have been declared unconstitutional or invalid, or which have been superseded by the enactment of later laws. Except as otherwise specifically provided by particular provisions of this Code, the enactment of this Code by the General Assembly is not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of this Code.

Annotations

Cross references. - Effective date of Code, § 1-1-9.

Law reviews. - For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Official Code publication controls over unofficial compilation. - Attorneys who cite unofficial publication of 1981 Code do so at their peril; in any situation wherein defendant's compilation differs in any way from statutory provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie (now Lexis-Nexis/srs), it is the Michie publication which is controlling. Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Alteration of substantive law not intended. - The primary purpose of the new codification was to rearrange the statutes as previously enacted by the General Assembly into a meaningful and cohesive order, a conclusion supported by language in this section that the Code "is not intended to alter the substantive laws in existence on the effective date of this Code." Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).

Sodomy statute not changed. - By the enactment of the Official Code of Georgia, the General Assembly did not intend to change the sodomy statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2) to exclude as a crime the placing of one's mouth on the sexual organ of another. Porter v. State, 168 Ga. App. 703, 309 S.E.2d 919 (1983).

Eminent domain notice statute not changed. - Placement of O.C.G.A. §§ 22-1-8 and 22-2-20 in different Code chapters did not, under the plain meaning of the sections and the operation of this section, extend coverage of O.C.G.A. § 22-2-20 (notice of condemnation in eminent domain provisions) to other than private property. DOT v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124, 337 S.E.2d 327 (1985).

Shoplifting statute unchanged. - It was the intention of the legislature that the provisions now codified as paragraphs (1) and (2) of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-60, governing detention of persons suspected of shoplifting, be read in the conjunctive, notwithstanding the use of the disjunctive in the present Code section because the Code revision committee's substitution of the word "or" for "or provided" between the paragraphs tends to give the statute a potentially irrational effect. K Mart Corp. v. Adamson, 192 Ga. App. 884, 386 S.E.2d 680 (1989).

Cited in Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 298 S.E.2d 510 (1982); Ketchum v. State, 167 Ga. App. 858, 307 S.E.2d 742 (1983); Axson v. State, 174 Ga. App. 236, 329 S.E.2d 566 (1985); Whaley v. State, 260 Ga. 384, 393 S.E.2d 681 (1990); Kumar v. Hall, 262 Ga. 639, 423 S.E.2d 653 (1992); Brophy v. McCranie, 264 Ga. 187, 442 S.E.2d 230 (1994); Charter Medical Info. Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 266 Ga. 720, 470 S.E.2d 655 (1996); Sheriff v. State, 277 Ga. 182, 587 S.E.2d 27 (2003); Hardin v. NBC Universal, Inc., 283 Ga. 477, 660 S.E.2d 374 (2008).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1982–2016 · leading case: Tuten v. City of Brunswick, 418 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tuten v. City of Brunswick, 418 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 8× “[3] (b) The following precepts are instructive: (i) OCGA § 1-1-2 provides in part: Except as otherwise specifically provided by particular provisions of this Code, the enactment of this Code by the General Assembly is not intended to alter the substantive law in *403 existence…”
Kumar v. Hall, 423 S.E.2d 653 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 8× “The general rule concerning the effect of changes in the language of preexisting statutes that were affected by the enactment of the Official Code of Georgia is stated in OCGA § 1-1-2, which provides that [t]he enactment of this Code is intended as a recodification, revision,…”
Davenport v. State, 711 S.E.2d 699 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 4× “Since enactment of the re-codification "was not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of [the re-codification]," we apply the law as it was enacted in 1976 by re-installing the comma after "in this state.”
Whaley v. State, 393 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. 1990). · cites it 12× “OCGA § 1-1-2 states that the enactment of the Official Code of Georgia was "not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of this Code.”
Stepperson, Inc. v. Long, 353 S.E.2d 461 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 6× “Citing that portion of OCGA § 1-1-2 which states, “Except as otherwise specifically provided by particular provisions of this Code, the enactment of this Code by the General Assembly is not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of this Code,”…”
Dep't of Transp. v. City of Atlanta, 337 S.E.2d 327 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 1-1-2. "Property" is still limited to "private property" for the purposes of OCGA § 22-2-20.”
Sheriff v. State, 587 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 4× “” The recodification’s substantive modification is not entitled to any weight since the General Assembly expressly provided in its enactment of the recodified Code that it did not intend the enactment of the 1982 Code to alter the substantive law in effect on the effective date…”
Newsome v. Dep't of Human Resources, 405 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “§ 88-118 was never amended, and that OCGA § 1-1-2 provides that the adoption of the new Michie Code was intended only as a recodification and modernization of the old Code, and its enactment was not intended to alter the substantive law then in existence, we hold that the phrase…”
Butler v. State, 637 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 1-1-2. See also Worley v. State, 265 Ga.”
Worley v. State, 454 S.E.2d 461 (Ga. 1995). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 1-1-2; see Porter v. State, 168 Ga.”
PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Smith, 785 S.E.2d 505 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 1-1-2; Brophy v. McCranie, 264 Ga.”
State v. Fordham, 324 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 1-1-2. (Emphasis supplied.) The repeal of former Code Ann.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.