O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-2-1 (2019)

Department created; commissioner of natural resources; affirmation of board decision by operation of law; appellate review

✓ 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

(a) There is created a Department of Natural Resources. (b)(1) There is created the position of commissioner of natural resources. The commissioner shall be both appointed and removed by the Board of Natural Resources subject to approval of the Governor. Subject to the general policy established by the Board of Natural Resources, the commissioner shall supervise, direct, account for, organize, plan, administer, and execute the functions vested in the Department of Natural Resources by this article. (2) The commissioner may delegate to any person in the Department of Natural Resources the power to be present and participate, including the power to vote as his or her representative or substitute, at any meeting, hearing, or other proceeding of any association, authority, committee, board, or other body upon which the commissioner serves pursuant to this title. (c) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a petition for judicial review of a final decision of the Board of Natural Resources in any matter arising under this title is filed pursuant to Chapter 13 of Title 50, the ‘‘Georgia Administrative Procedure Act,’’ if the superior court in which the petition for review is filed does not hear the case

within 90 days from the date the petition for review is filed with the court, the final decision of the board shall be considered affirmed by operation of law unless a hearing originally scheduled to be heard within the 90 days has been continued to a date certain by order of the court. In the event a hearing is held later than 90 days after the date the petition for review is filed with the superior court because a hearing originally scheduled to be heard within the 90 days has been continued to a date certain by order of the court, the final decision of the board shall be considered affirmed by operation of law if no order of the court disposing of the issues presented for review has been entered within 30 days after the date of the continued hearing. If a case is heard within 90 days from the date the petition for review is filed, the final decision of the board shall be considered affirmed by operation of law if no order of the court dispositive of the issues presented for review has been entered within 30 days of the date of the hearing. (d) A decision of the board affirmed by operation of law under subsection (c) of this Code section shall be subject to appellate review in the same manner as a decision of the superior court. The date of entry of judgment for purposes of appeal pursuant to Code Section 5-6-35 of a decision affirmed by operation of law without action of the superior court shall be the last date on which the superior court could have taken action under subsection (c) of this Code section. Upon the setting aside of any such decision of the board, the court may recommit the controversy to the board for further hearing or proceedings in conformity with the judgment and opinion of the court; or such court may enter the proper judgment upon the findings, as the nature of the case may demand. Such decree of the court shall have the same effect and all proceedings in relation thereto shall, subject to the other provisions of this chapter, thereafter be the same as though rendered in an action heard and determined by the court.

History

Ga. L. 1911, p. 137, § 1; Ga. L. 1921, p. 192, §§ 1, 4; Ga. L. 1924, p. 101, §§ 1, 3, 4; Ga. L. 1925, p. 199, § 1; Ga. L. 1931, p. 7, §§ 19, 21, 25; Ga. L. 1937, p. 264, §§ 1, 4, 5, 9; Ga. L. 1943, p. 128, §§ 1, 2, 14; Ga. L. 1943, p. 180,

§§ 1-3; Ga. L. 1949, p. 1079, §§ 1, 2, 5; Ga. L. 1955, p. 483, § 3; Ga. L. 1972, p. 1015, §§ 1501-1504, 1527; Ga. L. 1985, p. 1465, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 223, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 12; Ga. L. 1995, p. 105, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS final decision of the department violated neither equal protection nor due process. Nix v. Long Mtn. Resources, Inc., 262 Ga. 506, 422 S.E.2d 195 (1992). Hearing of administrative appeal. - Trial court had jurisdiction to hear administrative appeal regarding a solid waste handling permit granted by the

Constitutionality of procedure. - Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-1 et seq., and O.C.G.A. § 12-2-1 govern the procedure for judicial review of final decisions of the Department of Natural Resources and, when a party seeking review failed to make a timely request therefor, affirmance of the

CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.

protection or due process. Due process does not require a written opinion by the superior court because the presumption is that the superior court does not write an order if the court agrees with the result of the Department of Natural Resources Board’s decision. Rouse v. Georgia Dep’t of Natural Resources, 271 Ga. 726, 524 S.E.2d 455 (1999). Cited in Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 284 Ga. 736, 670 S.E.2d 429 (2008); Aaron v. Jekyll Island-State Park Authority, 348 Ga. App. 332, 822 S.E.2d 829 (2019).

Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources when, even though the hearing was not held within 90 days because appellants kept postponing the hearing, the hearing was held within 30 days of the 90-day period on ‘‘a date certain.’’ Dixie Recycling Sys. v. Barnes, 206 Ga. App. 365, 425 S.E.2d 297 (1992). Effect of affirmance of decision by operation of law. - Superior court’s affirmance by operation of law under the circumstances set forth in subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 12-2-1 did not violate equal

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Powers concerning state park expansion project. - Commissioner of natural resources is authorized to request issuance of general obligation bonds and execute any subsequent contracts to effect a state park expansion project in accordance with powers otherwise vested in the department. 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-12.

Commissioner is contracting authority of department. - Except for contracts within the purview of the Environmental Protection Division and the Department of Administrative Services, the contracting authority of the Department of Natural Resources is the commissioner of natural resources. 1980 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 80-38.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Nix v. Long Mountain Resources, Inc., 422 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nix v. Long Mountain Resources, Inc., 422 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 16× “When construed with the Administrative Procedures Act, OCGA § 12-2-1 (c) does not violate the equal protection or due process provisions of either the Federal or State constitutions.”

Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “6 The ALJ’s decision was subsequently affirmed by operation of law when the Fulton County Superior Court did not act on the petitions within the time limit set forth in OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). Pursuant to our grant of applications for discretionary appeals, the Committee (Case No.”

Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 670 S.E.2d 429 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). The Committee and Point Peter then sought, and were granted, discretionary appeal in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the ALJ’s decision, holding that the permitting power of the Committee did not extend to regulating…”

Rouse v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 524 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 7× “10 See OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). 11 OCGA § 12-2-1 (c), (d).”

Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Cartersville Med. Ctr., Inc., 798 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “736, 737 ( 670 SE2d 429 ) (2008) (noting that, in the context of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, where the trial court did not act upon the matter in the time specified by OCGA § 12-2-1 (c), the decision of the administrative law judge was affirmed by operation of law);…”

City of Rincon v. Couch, 623 S.E.2d 754 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). We granted the City’s application for discretionary appeal.”

Dixie Recycling Sytems, Inc. v. Barnes, 425 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “We granted discretionary appeal to determine whether the trial court was without jurisdiction under OCGA § 12-2-1 (c) to hear an administrative appeal regarding a solid waste handling permit granted by the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources…”

Angelita Aaron v. Jekyll Island State Park Auth. a/k/a Jekyll Island Auth. d/b/a Summer Waves Water Park (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Compare OCGA § 12-2-1 (a) (“There is created a Department of Natural Resources.”

Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Cartersville Med. Ctr., Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “736, 737 ( 670 SE2d 429 ) (2008) (noting that, in the context of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Act, where the trial court did not act upon the matter in the time specified by OCGA § 12-2-1 (c), the decision of the administrative from the date of docketing in the superior…”

Ed Sivak v. Georgia Dep't of Nat. Resources (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See generally OCGA § 12-2-1 (creating DNR). 9 OCGA § 50-21-24 (2).”

— 12-2-1(b)(1) — 1 case

Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm. v. Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast, 649 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). “6 The ALJ’s decision was subsequently affirmed by operation of law when the Fulton County Superior Court did not act on the petitions within the time limit set forth in OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). Pursuant to our grant of applications for discretionary appeals, the Committee (Case No.”

— 12-2-1(c) — 2 cases

Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 670 S.E.2d 429 (Ga. 2008). “See OCGA § 12-2-1 (c). The Committee and Point Peter then sought, and were granted, discretionary appeal in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the ALJ’s decision, holding that the permitting power of the Committee did not extend to regulating…”

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.