O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 1-1-3 (2019)

Severability

✓ 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

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Code or in an Act or resolution of the General Assembly, in the event any title, chapter, article, part, subpart, Code section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Code or of any Act or resolution of the General Assembly is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of this Code or of such Act or resolution, which shall remain of full force and effect as if such portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally a part of this Code or of such Act or resolution. The General Assembly declares that it would have enacted the remaining parts of this Code if it had known that such portion hereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. The General Assembly further declares that it would have enacted the remaining parts of any other Act or resolution if it had known that such portion thereof would be declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional unless such Act or resolution contains an express provision to the contrary.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358, 254 S.E.2d 315 (1979). Cited in Georgia Ass’n of Educators v. Harris, 749 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Ga. 1990); Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Jekyll Island Citizens Ass’n, 266 Ga. 152, 464 S.E.2d 808 (1996).

Severability clause creates presumption of separability. - The presence of a severability clause in an Act reverses the usual presumption that the General Assembly intends the Act to be an entirety and creates an opposite presumption of separability. City Council v.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1986–2009 · leading case: Allen v. Wright, 644 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allen v. Wright, 644 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. 2007). · cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 1-1-3 (statutes presumed to be severable, such that invalid provisions may be struck without invalidating entire statute).”

Dawson v. State, 554 S.E.2d 137 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 4× “; see also OCGA § 1-1-3. In fact, the portions of former OCGA § 17-10-30 et seq.”

Briggs v. State, 638 S.E.2d 292 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “[5] OCGA § 1-1-3. See also Nixon v. State, 256 Ga.”

Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Jekyll Island Citizens Ass'n, 464 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 1-1-3; Hunter v. State, 257 Ga. 571, 577 (6) (d) ( 361 SE2d 787 ) (1987).”

Georgia Ass'n of Educators v. Harris, 749 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Ga. 1990). · cites it 4× “Georgia’s severability statute, found at O.C.G.A. § 1-1-3, does not change this result.”

State of Ga. v. Moore, 376 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “(b) Under such a circumstance, OCGA § 1-1-3 creates a presumption of severability, and, ordinarily, the exemption would be stricken.”

Hunter v. State, 361 S.E.2d 787 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 1-1-3. In addition, although divining legislative intent is never an exact science, the Court has little trouble concluding that the legislature would desire to have the definition, distribution, and exhibition provisions of the Act severed from the unconstitutional…”

Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Webb, 643 F. Supp. 1546 (N.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 1-1-3. In addition, although divining legislative intent is never an exact science, the Court has little trouble concluding that the legislature would desire to have the definition, distribution, and exhibition provisions of the Act severed from the unconstitutional…”

Parham v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, 675 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 1-1-3 (a) (“Grammatical errors shall not vitiate a law.”

Collins v. Woodham, 362 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 1-1-3 provides: “Except as otherwise specifically provided .”

Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Webb, 654 F. Supp. 503 (N.D. Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 1-1-3. In addition, although divining legislative intent is never an exact science, the Court has little trouble concluding that the legislature would desire to have the definition, distribution, and exhibition provisions of the Act severed from the unconstitutional…”

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.