Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 12-8-24 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 12-8-24 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 12-8-24

TITLE 12 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 8. Waste Management, 12-8-1 through 12-8-210.

ARTICLE 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

12-8-24. Permits for solid waste or special solid waste handling, disposal, or thermal treatment technology facility; inspection of solid waste generators.

  1. No person shall engage in solid waste or special solid waste handling in Georgia or construct or operate a solid waste handling facility in Georgia, except those individuals exempted from this part under Code Section 12-8-30.10, without first obtaining a permit from the director authorizing such activity.
    1. No permit for a biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility shall be issued by the director unless the applicant for such facility demonstrates to the director that a need exists for the facility for waste generated in Georgia by showing that there is not presently in existence within the state sufficient disposal facilities for biomedical waste being generated or expected to be generated within the state. For purposes of this part, "biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility" means any facility that exists for the purpose of reducing the amount of biomedical waste disposed of through a process of combustion, with or without the process of converting such waste to energy.
    2. Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility which is operated exclusively by a private biomedical waste generator on property owned by the private biomedical waste generator for the purpose of accepting biomedical waste exclusively from the private biomedical waste generator so long as the operation of the biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility does not adversely affect the public health or the environment.After commencement of operation by a private biomedical waste generator of a biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility which is permitted by but not included in a local or regional solid waste management plan, amendment of the local or regional solid waste management plan shall be required for any biomedical waste which is no longer to be disposed of by the private biomedical waste generator in its own biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility prior to any substantial reduction in the amount of biomedical waste produced by the private biomedical waste generator and accepted by its own biomedical waste thermal treatment technology facility or the closure of such facility.
  3. On or after March 30, 1990, any permit for the transportation of municipal solid waste from a jurisdiction generating solid waste to a municipal solid waste disposal facility located in another county shall be conditioned upon the jurisdiction generating solid waste developing and being actively involved in, by July 1, 1992, a strategy for meeting the state-wide goal of waste reduction by July 1, 1996.
  4. If the director determines that such activity will result in any violation of this part or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to this part, he shall deny the permit; otherwise, he shall issue the permit, specifying on the permit the conditions under which such activity shall be conducted; provided, however, that a public hearing shall be held by the governing authority of the county or municipality in which the municipal solid waste or special solid waste handling shall occur not less than two weeks prior to the issuance of any permit under this Code section and notice of such hearing shall be posted at the proposed site and advertised in a newspaper of general circulation serving the county or counties in which the proposed activity will be conducted at least 30 days prior to such hearing.
      1. Reserved.
      2. The director may suspend, modify, or revoke any permit issued pursuant to this Code section if the holder of the permit is found to be in violation of any of the permit conditions or any order of the director or fails to perform solid waste handling in accordance with this part or rules promulgated under this part.
        1. The director may modify any permit issued pursuant to this Code section in accordance with rules promulgated by the board. All modifications of existing permits shall be classified by the board as either major or minor modifications.
        2. All modifications of existing permits to allow vertical or horizontal expansion of existing disposal facilities, except a facility operated by a utility regulated by the Public Service Commission, shall be classified as major permit modifications and shall not be granted by the director sooner than three years from the date any such facility commenced operation; provided, however, that a permit may be modified by the director to allow a vertical or horizontal expansion one time within three years from the date the facility commenced operation so long as the capacity of the facility is not increased more than 10 percent.
        3. All modifications of permits for existing municipal solid waste disposal facilities for the addition at such facility of a recovered materials processing facility shall be classified as minor permit modifications, provided the location of such facility complies with the same buffer requirements applicable to the disposal facility. Such materials shall be reported at the disposal facility separately from waste materials destined for disposal. Operators of such disposal facilities may report to the Department of Community Affairs on an annual basis the total amounts of such materials diverted from landfill disposal.
        4. The disposal facility permit holder shall provide written notification to the chief elected official of the jurisdiction in which the facility is located at least 30 days prior to starting any recovered materials processing facility. This notification shall include an indication of whether or not the ten-year demonstrated capacity of the landfill will be reduced. The permit holder shall comply with all applicable local zoning ordinances. If necessary to satisfy local solid waste planning and reporting requirements, disposal facility operators may be required by the county, municipality, or solid waste management authority for the jurisdiction in which the disposal facility is located to report the total amounts of such materials diverted from landfill disposal.
    2. Prior to the granting of any major modification of an existing solid waste handling permit by the director, a public hearing shall be held by the governing authority of the county or municipality in which the municipal solid waste facility or special solid waste handling facility requesting the modification is located not less than two weeks prior to the issuance of any permit under this Code section and notice of such hearing shall be posted at the site of such facility and advertised in a newspaper of general circulation serving the county or counties in which such facility is located at least 30 days prior to such hearing.
    3. Except as otherwise provided in this part, major modifications shall meet the siting and design standards applicable to new permit applications in effect on the date the modification is approved by the director; provided, however, that a facility may be granted a variance by the director from those standards when vertically expanded unless such variance is inconsistent with federal laws and regulations; provided, further, that the director shall not grant a variance from the provisions of subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (4) of this subsection.
    4. No vertical expansions shall be approved under this subsection unless:
      1. The owner or operator demonstrates compliance with all standards not varied by the director;
      2. The owner or operator has installed a surface and ground-water monitoring system approved by the division under currently promulgated rules and has submitted the initial sampling results to the division;
      3. The owner or operator has implemented or installed a methane gas monitoring program or system approved by the division under currently promulgated rules and has submitted the initial sampling results to the division;
      4. The owner or operator has a closure and postclosure care plan approved by the division under currently promulgated rules;
      5. Where noncompliance with the standards for surface water, ground water, or methane gas has been determined, the owner or operator has a schedule and corrective action plan approved by the division for returning the site to compliance within six months of the director's approval of the corrective action plan. If the owner or operator cannot demonstrate that the site can be returned to compliance within said six-month period, the director shall not issue a permit to expand the site vertically but shall order the facility to prepare a final closure plan, including the cessation of waste receipt within six months of the final effective date of the order; and
      6. Where noncompliance with the standards for surface water, ground water, or methane gas may be determined and the permit has not been transferred to another person, the owner or operator has a remedial modification plan providing for the evacuation of all previously disposed waste from a permitted, unlined expansion site and redisposal of such waste into a conforming facility with a composite liner and leachate collection system. If noncompliance is determined, the director shall order the owner or operator to prepare a corrective action plan, which must be approved by the division, and such corrective action must be completed within the compliance time frame determined by the division. If the owner or operator cannot demonstrate that the site can be returned to compliance within such division compliance time frame, the director shall order the facility to prepare a final closure plan, including the cessation of waste receipt within 12 months of the final effective date of the order.
    5. Modifications for vertical expansions issued under this Code section may be restricted in duration, but in no case shall be effective for municipal solid waste landfills not having liners and leachate collection systems, other than those landfills restricted to construction or demolition waste.
    6. The owner or operator of any site not having a liner and leachate collection system which is vertically expanded and which subsequently fails to demonstrate compliance with all applicable surface water, ground-water, or methane gas standards shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director, through a corrective action plan, that the site has been or can be returned to compliance within six months of the director's approval of the corrective action plan.If the owner or operator fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that compliance has been attained or can be attained, the director shall notify the owner or operator, ordering cessation of the acceptance of waste for disposal, remediation of noncompliance, and implementation of the final closure plan, to include a final date for closure.
  6. In the event of the modification, suspension, amendment, or revocation of a permit, the director shall serve written notice of such action on the permit holder and shall set forth in such notice the reason for such action.
  7. Prior to the issuance of any permit for a solid waste handling facility or the granting of any major modification of an existing solid waste handling permit, the director shall require written verification to be furnished by the applicant that the proposed facility complies with local zoning or land use ordinances, if any; and after July 1, 1992, that the proposed facility is consistent with the local, multijurisdictional, or regional solid waste management plan developed in accordance with standards promulgated pursuant to this part subject to the provisions of Code Section 12-8-31.1 and that the host jurisdiction and all jurisdictions generating solid waste destined for the applicants' facility can demonstrate that they are part of an approved solid waste plan developed in accordance with standards promulgated pursuant to this part and are actively involved in and have a strategy for meeting the state-wide goal of waste reduction by July 1, 1996. Prior to the issuance of any permit for a solid waste handling facility or the granting of any major modification of an existing solid waste handling permit that will handle solid waste from jurisdictions outside Georgia, the out-of-state solid waste generating jurisdictions shall provide documentation that they have a strategy for and are actively involved in meeting planning requirements and a waste reduction goal that are substantially equivalent to the planning requirements and waste reduction goal contained in this part.
  8. No permit for a disposal facility shall be issued to any regional solid waste management authority created under Part 2 of this article, the "Regional Solid Waste Management Authorities Act," until local and regional solid waste management plans consistent with this part have been developed for all jurisdictions participating in such authority and such plans are found to be consistent with the state solid waste management plan pursuant to subsection (d) of Code Section 12-8-31.1.
  9. No permit shall be issued for a new solid waste thermal treatment technology facility unless the applicant meets or exceeds standards adopted by the board which shall be consistent with and at least as stringent as the Federal New Source Performance Standards for new municipal waste combustors outlined in regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1857, et seq., as amended, and 42 U.S.C. Section 7401, et seq., as amended.
  10. The director or his designee is authorized to inspect any generator in Georgia to determine whether that generator's solid waste is acceptable for the intended handling facility. The division may require any generator in Georgia to cease offering solid waste for handling if such solid waste is not acceptable under standards promulgated by the board, and the division may prohibit the handling of such solid waste until waste management procedures acceptable to the division are developed.Such prohibition shall continue in effect until the waste management procedure for handling is approved in writing by the division.Any generator or handler in Georgia which does not comply with a prohibition made under this subsection shall be in violation of this part.
  11. Any inert waste landfill which, as of January 1, 2014, has been certified by a professional engineer registered in accordance with Chapter 15 of Title 43 as being in full compliance with all permit by rule requirements established in the rules and regulations of the division as they existed on January 1, 2012, may continue to operate under such permit by rule requirements.

(Code 1981, §12-8-24, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 462, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3276, §§ 4, 5; Ga. L. 1993, p. 399, §§ 5, 6; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1922, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 10, § 12; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1081, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1641, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1247, § 7/SB 122; Ga. L. 2010, p. 235, § 1/HB 1059; Ga. L. 2013, p. 171, § 1/HB 320.)

The 2010 amendment, effective July 1, 2010, designated paragraph (e)(1) as subparagraphs (e)(1)(A) through (e)(1)(C); added "Reserved." in paragraph (e)(1)(A); designated subparagraph (e)(1)(C) as divisions (e)(1)(C)(i) and (e)(1)(C)(ii); and added divisions (e)(1)(C)(iii) and (e)(1)(C)(iv).

The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, added subsection (k).

Cross references.

- Granting of permission by counties to persons contracting to transport and dump trash, garbage, or other refuse at publicly or privately owned dumps, § 36-1-16.

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1990, "March 30, 1990" was substituted for "the effective date of this part" near the beginning of subsection (c).

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, a comma was inserted following "March 30, 1990" in subsection (b) (now subsection (c)).

Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, "landfills" was substituted for "land fills" in paragraph (e)(5) and "42 U.S.C. Section 7401" was substituted for "42 U.S.C. 7401" in subsection (i).

Law reviews.

- For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004). For note on 1991 enactment of this Code section, see 8 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 16 (1992). For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 199 (1992).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- Provisions of this article and the rules that apply to the regulation of out-of-state waste, or "special solid waste," specifically former § 12-8-27 and Rule 391-3-4.10, in their entirety, and O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 and Rule 391-3-4-.02, insofar as they require a permit for the handling of special solid waste, are unconstitutional burdens upon interstate commerce. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (decided prior to repeal of § 12-8-27 by Ga. L. 1993, p. 399).

State failed to justify the state's requirements that one must obtain a special solid waste handling permit prior to engaging in out-of-state waste disposal; that an out-of-state waste handler must submit a waste analysis plan, through which the operator must obtain a representative sample from every load of out-of-state waste received and perform a detailed chemical and physical analysis on the sample; that out-of-state waste be accompanied by a manifest at all times that the waste is in the state of Georgia; that $10.00 per ton be charged as a fee on out-of-state waste; and that the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources be authorized to inspect at random any out-of-state generators that dispose of their waste in Georgia. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

That out-of-state generators may be less trustworthy than in-state generators is an insufficient reason to burden interstate commerce in solid waste disposal since a load of in-state waste is no different from a load of out-of-state waste apart from origin. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).

"Georgia need" provision in paragraph (b)(1) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-4, which regulates permits for biomedical waste thermal treatment facilities, is unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

"Transportation restrictions" set forth in subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-4 and regulations thereunder, to the extent the restrictions place certain conditions on an applicant's permit for the transportation of biomedical waste from a jurisdiction generating solid waste destined for the applicant's facility, are unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

"Planning requirements" set forth in subsection (g) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1, and regulations thereunder, insofar as they require an applicant for a permit for a biomedical waste thermal treatment facility to provide certain verifications regarding out-of-state jurisdictions generating solid waste destined for the applicant's facility, are unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

Application of 1994 amendment to paragraph (e)(1) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 to permit application filed prior to effective date of amendment violated constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws which injuriously affect vested rights of citizens. Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253, 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996).

Three-year waiting period for modifications not applied retroactively.

- When a treatment facility applied for a modification of the facility's permit less than three years after commencement of the facility's operations, but before the amendment of subsection (e) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 imposing the three-year waiting period, the trial court erred in upholding the board's decision giving retroactive effect to the amendment. Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253, 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996).

Applicability of verification requirement.

- Requirement of subsection (g) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24, pertaining to documentation by an applicant of participation by the host jurisdiction and all jurisdictions generating waste destined for the applicant's facility in an approved solid waste plan, applies before a permit may be issued; the provision does not call for conditioning issuance of a permit upon a continuing obligation to submit planning verification. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc., 216 Ga. App. 699, 455 S.E.2d 393 (1995).

Factors to be considered in verification process.

- O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g) did not prohibit local governments from considering factors other than environmental and land use factors in developing a Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), and a local government was authorized to consider any relevant factor in determining whether a proposed facility was consistent with its SWMP that it properly considered in the SWMP itself; the Supreme Court of Georgia overruled Butts County v. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 510, 445 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) and held that a trial court erred in ruling that a county improperly considered factors other than environmental and land use factors in refusing to issue a verification to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division regarding an applicant's proposed landfill. Murray County v. R&J Murray, LLC, 280 Ga. 314, 627 S.E.2d 574 (2006).

Because a buyer's proposed landfill would not be a public utility, but would be privately-owned, the buyer was not entitled to a written verification of zoning compliance so the buyer could pursue a state permit to build a landfill; hence, the county was properly granted summary judgment as to this issue. EarthResources, LLC v. Morgan County, 281 Ga. 396, 638 S.E.2d 325 (2006).

County properly denied verification under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g) of a limited liability company's proposal for a landfill because the relevant factors in developing the county's solid waste management plan, such as the costs and financing of a landfill that supported the county's one-landfill strategy, were considered; the county also properly considered the sustainability of a landfill as it related to citizens' protection, health, and safety and furthered the purposes of the Solid Waste Management Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-20 et seq. R&J Murray, LLC v. Murray County, 282 Ga. 740, 653 S.E.2d 720 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1053, 128 S. Ct. 2476, 171 L. Ed. 2d 767 (2008).

Mandamus to compel verification.

- When county invalidly refused to verify that proposed landfill site was consistent with the county's solid waste management plan, mandamus against the county to compel verification was the appropriate remedy. Butts County v. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 510, 445 S.E.2d 294 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Murray County v. R & J Murray, LLC, 280 Ga. 314, 627 S.E.2d 574 (2006).

Trial court properly entered a declaratory judgment against a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP) and properly denied the LLLP's request for a writ of mandamus as the LLLP was not entitled to a verification letter since the county's zoning ordinance was properly enacted, and the LLLP's land was not zoned for a landfill. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).

Applicant for a solid waste handling facility was entitled to mandamus relief seeking to compel a city to issue written verification that a proposed solid waste handling facility did not violate any zoning or land use ordinances and that it was consistent with all solid waste management plans because: (1) the city did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1(a) and (b); and (2) the city could not rely on the city's solid waste management plan to deny the written verification under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g), which was consistent with the city's plan approved in 1993. McKee v. City of Geneva, 280 Ga. 411, 627 S.E.2d 555 (2006).

Direct appeal from denial of mandamus to compel verification.

- Intermediate court properly transferred an application for discretionary review filed by a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP), seeking review of the denial of the partnership's request for a writ of mandamus, to the Georgia Supreme Court, as cases involving the grant or denial of mandamus are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court without regard to the underlying subject matter or the legal issues raised. As the case involved permitting requirements for landfills, it concerned a statutory scheme requiring a permit from the state for a land use that was regulated by the state, and the LLLP was entitled to a direct appeal from the denial of its mandamus action. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).

Right to verification of compliance.

- When a proposed solid waste landfill expansion was in compliance with the county's zoning ordinances at the time the applicants sought written verification of compliance, the applicants had a vested right to obtain written verification despite the subsequent enactment of a restated zoning ordinance. Banks County v. Chambers of Ga., 264 Ga. 421, 444 S.E.2d 783 (1994).

Cited in Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, 886 F. Supp. 851 (M.D. Ga. 1994); ENRE Corp. v. Wheeler County Bd. of Comm'rs, 274 Ga. 17, 549 S.E.2d 67 (2001).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under Ga. L. 1973, pp. 1269 and 1270 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Requirement that information accompany permit application permitted.

- Director may, if the director deems it relevant, require that information accompany a solid waste permit application indicating whether the permit, if granted, would result in a violation of local zoning regulations or ordinances. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-14 (decided under Ga. L. 1973, pp. 1269, 1270).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Licenses and Permits, §§ 9 et seq., 56 et seq.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 12-8-24 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 12

State of Georgia v. International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-07-05

Citation: 299 Ga. 392, 788 S.E.2d 455, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 465

Snippet: verification letter to state regulators under OCGA § 12-8-24 (g)). 24 See, e.g., Ga.

East Georgia Land & Development Co. v. Newton County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-03-19

Citation: 723 S.E.2d 909, 290 Ga. 732, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 955, 2012 WL 933121, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 295

Snippet: of Commissioners (Board) as required by OCGA § 12-8-24 (g). On August 25, 1997, the Board declined to

East Georgia Land & Development Co. v. Baker

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-01-25

Citation: 690 S.E.2d 145, 286 Ga. 551, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 163, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 86

Snippet: complied with the local zoning ordinance. See OCGA § 12-8-24(g). The County refused to issue the letter, on

R AND J MURRAY, LLC v. Murray County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-11-21

Citation: 653 S.E.2d 720, 282 Ga. 740, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3595, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 858

Snippet: facility with the jurisdiction’s SWMP. OCGA § 12-8-24 (g). For a discussion of the consistency verification

EARTHRESOURCES, LLC. v. Morgan County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-11-30

Citation: 638 S.E.2d 325, 281 Ga. 396, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 3714, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 1031

Snippet: a state permit to build a landfill. See OCGA § 12-8-24(g). EarthResources asserted its plans met zoning

Murray County v. R & J MURRAY, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-03-13

Citation: 627 S.E.2d 574, 280 Ga. 314, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 719, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 166

Snippet: acres it owned in Murray County. Under OCGA § 12-8-24 (g), before R&J could obtain a permit to build

McKee v. City of Geneva

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-03-13

Citation: 627 S.E.2d 555, 280 Ga. 411

Snippet: City of Geneva (City). In accordance with OCGA § 12-8-24 (g), he requested written verification from the

Mid-Georgia Environmental Management Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-03-22

Citation: 594 S.E.2d 344, 277 Ga. 670, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1006, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 264

Snippet: and then approved, or not, by the Board. OCGA § 12-8-24 (g) does not provide how the required verification

Enre Corp. v. Wheeler County Board of Commissioners

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-06-25

Citation: 549 S.E.2d 67, 274 Ga. 17, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1993, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 524

Snippet: All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] See OCGA § 12-8-24(g) (applicant seeking to build a solid waste handling

Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Board of Natural Resources

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-01-22

Citation: 466 S.E.2d 197, 266 Ga. 253, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 365, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 27

Snippet: application, the General Assembly amended OCGA § 12-8-24 (e) (1) so as to provide that, with one ex*254ception

Banks County v. Chambers of Georgia, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-07-05

Citation: 264 Ga. 421, 444 S.E.2d 783, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 2209, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 481

Snippet: in compliance with local land use laws. OCGA § 12-8-24 (g); Ga. Comp. R. & Regs., r. 391-3-4-.05 (1993)

Russell v. Equitable Loan & Security Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1907-10-05

Citation: 129 Ga. 154, 58 S.E. 881, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 324

Snippet: 72. Suppose five of these had lapsed (say 1, 12, 8, 24, and 72), then five others would have to take