O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-5-370 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This part shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Georgia Safe Dams Act of 1978.’’

History

Ga. L. 1978, p. 795, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Directed verdict proper when issue of ownership previously decided. - Trial court properly directed a verdict against the county and in favor of the homeowners on the issue of the county’s ownership interest in a dam in the homeowners’ suit seeking to limit the county’s ability to breach the dam; that issue was resolved in a prior administrative action and appeals from that determination in which the county was found to be an owner required to repair or breach the dam pursuant to the Georgia Safe Dams Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-370 et seq., and the suit did not concern whether there were additional owners of the dam. Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga. 215, 610 S.E.2d 512 (2005). Motion for directed verdict properly denied. - County’s motion for a

directed verdict on the county’s counterclaim and cross-claim for declaratory relief against the homeowners was properly denied because the jury was not asked to decide issues of inverse condemnation, nuisance, or other claims of county liability for damages purportedly caused when the county dug a trench across a dam in response to the demand for immediate action by the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Natural Resources Department, pursuant to the Georgia Safe Dams Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-370 et seq., due to the danger the dam posed. Forsyth County v. Martin, 279 Ga. 215, 610 S.E.2d 512 (2005). Cited in Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 272 Ga. App. 894, 613 S.E.2d 673 (2005).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: State Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. Stricklett, 555 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. Stricklett, 555 S.E.2d 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “There was also evidence that, because of the recent location of residences in the floodplain downstream of the dam, the dam would have to be reclassified as a Category I dam (improper operation or dam failure would result in probable loss of human life) under the Georgia Safe…”

Forsyth Cnty. v. Martin, 610 S.E.2d 512 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 2× “This case revolves around the legal effect of the property interests of lakefront property owners on the decision whether to breach or to repair the earthen dam that impounds the lake, as ordered by the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural…”

Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Inc. v. Dillard, 613 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “410 (1) ( 455 SE2d 834 ) (1995) (because a trial court in an interlocutory injunction decision does not make a final determination of the issues, “the grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction, as well as the affirmance thereof by [an appellate court], does not establish…”

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.