O.C.G.A.
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.
This part shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act.’’
History
Code 1981, § 12-8-20, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey on local government law, see 42 Mercer L.
Rev. 359 (1990). For summary review article on zoning and land use law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2008).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Unrefuted evidence presented in support of the county’s motion for reconsideration established that the existing landfill did not accept C&D waste;
therefore, the trial court’s finding that the county did not permit the placement of C&D waste in the county’s existing landfill was not supported by the evidence of
CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.
record. Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 277 Ga. 690, 594 S.E.2d 335 (2004). Garbage collection services contracts. - County’s alleged anticompetitive conduct in enacting an ordinance authorizing the county to enter into a contract with a private enterprise for garbage collection was expressly contemplated by the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-20 et seq., and, thus, the county was immune from state and federal antitrust laws. Strykr v. Long County Bd. of Comm’rs, 277 Ga. 624, 593 S.E.2d 348 (2004). Prior consent order did not amount to criminal punishment to which double jeopardy prohibitions applied. - Trial court properly denied a solid waste
facility operator’s double jeopardy plea in bar of prosecution because even though the parties stipulated that the consent order and the criminal action alleged the same nuisance conduct and each proceeding had the same goals of restraint, deterrence, and abatement, the criminal action was not barred by the sanctions imposed in the consent order since the consent order did not amount to criminal punishment to which double jeopardy prohibitions applied. Wilbros, LLC v. State, 294 Ga. 514, 755 S.E.2d 145 (2014). Cited in Chambers of Ga., Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 232 Ga. App. 632, 502 S.E.2d 553 (1998); R&J Murray, LLC v. Murray County, 282 Ga. 740, 653 S.E.2d 720 (2007).
Notes of Decisions
Lamar Cnty. v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 594 S.E.2d 335 (Ga. 2004).
· cites it 8× “This Court granted Lamar County's application for discretionary review and requested the parties to address whether the trial court was correct in determining that Lamar County's SWMP violates the requirements of OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq., and whether the trial court's order is…”
Quebell P. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 468 F.3d 733 (11th Cir. 2006).
“Georgia received approval to do so in 1979, and enacted the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”), Ga.Code Ann. §§ 12-8-20 through 12-8-59.2, to regulate solid and hazardous waste.”
Quebell P. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, 386 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 2004).
“§§ 12-8-60 through 12-8-83, and the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”), Ga.Code Ann. §§ 12-8-20 through 12-8-59.2, to regulate solid and hazardous waste.”
Fulton Cnty. v. Bartenfeld, 363 S.E.2d 555 (Ga. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Under the “Solid Waste Management Act” (OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq.) (referred to as the Act) as well as rules and regulations promulgated thereunder (Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Chapter 391-3-4 (1974)), the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia…”
Strykr v. Long Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 593 S.E.2d 348 (Ga. 2004).
· cites it 2× “, entering into a contract with a private contractor to provide curbside solid waste collection to all residents of unincorporated Long County, was conduct expressly contemplated by the State in the enactment of the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, OCGA §…”
R & J MURRAY, LLC v. Murray Cnty., 653 S.E.2d 720 (Ga. 2007).
· cites it 4× “post-closure maintenance of the landfill; that those costs are interrelated with the costs of collection and waste reduction; that the financing necessary to meet those costs is dependent on having a waste stream sufficient to generate the necessary revenue; and that development…”
Elbert Cnty. v. Sweet City Landfill, Llc., 774 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 2× “in accordance with Section 62-52 of the Elbert County Code of Ordinances [and relevant sections of the *430 Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq., and regulations of the Department of Natural Resources].”
Perry v. Soil Remediation, Inc., 471 S.E.2d 320 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Soil Remediation is a “materials recovery facility” which must dispose of its wastes in compliance with the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq., and regulations issued pursuant to it.”
Butts Cnty. v. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc., 445 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq. The trial court ruled that under the Act, Butts County must base its decision as to whether the Pine Ridge site is consistent with the county’s solid waste management plan solely on environmental and land use factors.”
Enviro Pro, Inc. v. Emanuel Cnty., 593 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “ith your land application activity, should you have land applied domestic septage from multiple sources in Emanuel County or any other county in the State, or continue your plans to land apply domestic septage from multiple sources in Emanuel County or any other county in the…”
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.