Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 12-15-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 12-15-3 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 12-15-3

TITLE 12 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 15. Sewage Holding Tanks and Commercial Waste, 12-15-1 through 12-15-24.

ARTICLE 1 SEWAGE HOLDING TANKS

12-15-3. Definitions.

As used in this article, the term:

  1. "Construction period" means the period of time during which a valid construction permit is in effect for a construction site.
  2. "Construction site" means the property designated in a valid construction permit issued by the local government having jurisdiction of construction.
  3. "Department" means the Department of Natural Resources.
  4. "Sewage" means human excreta, all water carried wastes, and liquid waste, including gray water or similar waste by-products.
  5. "Sewage holding tank" means a portable receptacle used on a temporary basis for containing sewage from flush toilets not connected to a public sewer system or an approved on-site sewage management system.
  6. "Sewage holding tank system" means a closed system including the plumbing fixtures and connections to the sewage holding tanks.
  7. "Special event" means any activity attracting more than 50 persons which is sponsored, organized, promoted, managed, or financed by any person, group, partnership, organization, corporation, business, or government entity where individuals congregate to participate in or observe an activity in outdoor or portable enclosed or semienclosed structures for more than two consecutive hours.

(Code 1981, §12-15-3, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 861, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 357, § 2; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 12/HB 942.)

The 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "gray water" for "graywater" in paragraph (4).

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1990, a comma was inserted following "business" in paragraph (7).

Cases Citing Georgia Code 12-15-3 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 10

CLARY Et Al. v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-02-02T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 340 Ga. App. 351, 795 S.E.2d 757, 2017 WL 455267

Snippet: Under Georgia law, “[tjhere cannot be an express and implied contract for the same thing existing at the same time between the same parties.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Ga. Real Estate Properties v. Lindwall, 303 Ga. App. 12, 15 (3) (692 SE2d 690) (2010). Therefore, where there exists an express agreement covering the same subject matter, the courts will not imply a contract. Id. As noted in Division 1, supra, if an insurer repairs damaged property, in lieu of paying for the

The Tolson Firm, LLC v. Hezekiah Sistrunk, Jr.

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2016-07-12T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 338 Ga. App. 25, 789 S.E.2d 265, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 421

Snippet: at the same time between the same parties. A plaintiff is estopped to recover on quantum meruit where there exists an express agreement.” (Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Ga. Real Estate Properties v. Lindwall, 303 Ga.App. 12, 15 (3) (692 SE2d 690) (2010). And “summary judgment should not be granted on that ground where ... a jury must resolve whether a contract existed between the parties. [Cit.]” Vernon v. Assurance Forensic Accounting, 333 Ga.App. 377, 395 (7)

Harris v. the State

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2015-07-08T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 332 Ga. App. 789, 775 S.E.2d 165

Snippet: In evaluating the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless it was clearly erroneous and review its decision to admit the similar transaction evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10, 12-15 (3) (727 SE2d 112) (2012). *793 Decided July 7, 2015. Tamika L. Fluker, for appellant. K. David Cooke, Jr., District Attorney, Dorothy V. Hull, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. The State filed notice

Gibson v. State

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2008-04-16T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 661 S.E.2d 850, 291 Ga. App. 183, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1492

Snippet: been preferable for officer to give eyewitness standard admonition that lineup may or may not have had picture of perpetrator). [9] Parker, supra at 824-825, 616 S.E.2d 139. [10] (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Frazier v. State, 263 Ga.App. 12, 15(3)(a), 587 S.E.2d 173 (2003). [11] See Jennings v. State, 277 Ga.App. 159, 161(2), 626 S.E.2d 155 (2006); Andrews v. State, 222 Ga.App. 129, 131(3), 473 S.E.2d 247 (1996). [12] See McClain v. State, 284 Ga.App. 187, 190(4)(b), 643 S.E.2d 273 (2007)

Richardson v. Chesky

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1998-10-29T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 235 Ga. App. 28, 508 S.E.2d 441, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 4058

Snippet: control device, he need not comply with any other rules of the road, such as signaling or maintaining a diligent lookout. We decline to accept such an interpretation of these two statutes. There was no error. See Crouch v. Nicholson, 116 Ga. App. 12, 15 (3) (156 SE2d 384) (1967). Judgment affirmed. Smith, J, and Senior Appellate Judge Harold R. Banke concur. See generally regarding these concepts McEachern v. Muldovan, 234 Ga. App. 152 (505 SE2d 495) (1998).

Jones v. State

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1998-07-07T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 503 S.E.2d 902, 233 Ga. App. 291, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 2715

Snippet: App. 361, 362(2), 378 S.E.2d 886 (1989) (court's awakening sleeping juror was sufficient remedy; no error in denying defendant's motion for mistrial). [14] Bright v. State, 265 Ga. 265, 285(19)(a), 455 S.E.2d 37 (1995); see Jones v. State, 268 Ga. 12, 15(3), 483 S.E.2d 871 (1997). [15] 265 Ga. at 285(19)(a), 455 S.E.2d 37. [16] Bryant v. State, 268 Ga. 33, 34(1), 485 S.E.2d 763 (1997). [17] See Hubacher v. Volkswagen Central, 164 Ga. App. 791, 796(5), 298 S.E.2d 533 (1982) (court has discretion

Mills v. Freeman

Court: N.D. Ga. | Date Filed: 1996-06-12T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 942 F. Supp. 1449, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19561, 1996 WL 627549

Snippet: GREATER THAN 13 YEARS LESS THAN 10 YEARS YEAR BLACK NON-BLACK BLACK NON-BLACK SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS 1989-90 3 3 16 0 1990-91 6 12 15 3 1991-92 13 15 5 1 1992-93 11 14 11 1 1993-94 18 16 9 1 1994-95 17 (38%) 17 (52%) 10 (22%) 1 (3%) 1995-96 20 (39%)

Ross v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp.

Court: M.D. Ga. | Date Filed: 1991-06-04T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 764 F. Supp. 1543, 1991 WL 97214

Snippet: T-230 9/7/81 T-312 9.85 3/8/82 T-318 10.60 11.30 T-324 T-330 T-336 9/6/82 T-424 12.15 3/7/83 T-430 12.75 13.40 9/5/83 T-536 14.00 3/5/84 T-542 14.55 15.30 9/3/84 T-548

Jackson v. State

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1989-11-21T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 388 S.E.2d 881, 193 Ga. App. 636, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1603

Snippet: evidence presented at trial by Lyons established the same facts to which Faulk testified. " `(P)roof of the same facts by legally admissible evidence renders harmless the admission of inadmissible evidence. [Cit.]" Pittman v. State, 183 Ga. App. 12, 15 (3) (357 SE2d 855) (1987). Brown v. State, 632 (217 SE2d 150) (1975), questioned in Painter v. State, 237 Ga. 30 (226 SE2d 578) (1976), which appellant cites in support of his argument, is not applicable here in that the hearsay objection sustained

Purcell v. Hill

Court: Ga. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1965-03-02T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 141 S.E.2d 153, 111 Ga. App. 256, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 938

Snippet: 107); Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460, 462 (4) (128 SE2d 496); Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 107 Ga. App. 384, 386 (4) (130 SE2d 355), as compared with the following authorities Mitchum v. State, 11 Ga. 615 (7), 628; Washington v. State, 87 Ga. 12, 15 (3) (13 SE 131); Hudson v. State, 101 Ga. 520, 525 (28 SE 1010); Ivey v. State, 113 Ga. 1062, 1065 (39 SE 423, 54 LRA 959); Smoot v. State, 146 Ga. 76, 81 (90 SE 715); Brooks v. State, 183 Ga. 466, esp. p. 469 (188 SE 711, 108 ALR 752); Mims v. State