O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-6-87 (2019)

Furnishing of fixtures, supplies, and equipment to clerk

✓ 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) The county governing authority shall supply all fixtures, supplies, and equipment necessary for the proper functioning of the office of clerk of superior court. (b) All provisions of law relating to the filing, docketing, recording, keeping, copying, binding, indexing, certification, and furnishing of copies of records, including certified copies, and those provisions relating to the amount of fees of officers in connection therewith, as far as may be consistent with this Code section, shall apply to such digital, photographic, and electronic records and copies.

History

Ga. L. 1957, p. 121, § 2; Ga. L. 1962, p. 639, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 395, § 6; Ga. L. 2012, p. 173, § 1-21/HB 665.

Annotations

Cross references. - Removal and

storage of court records, § 15-1-10. Use of microforms by agencies of state government or any of its political subdivisions, § 50-18-120 et seq.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Clerks of superior court may microfilm and keep all instruments and records in the clerk’s court excepting only instruments evidencing title to real property. 1970 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 70-125. Recording by microfilm rather than in volumes permitted. - Former Code 1933, §§ 24-2714 and 24-2715 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-6-61), when construed with Ga. L. 1962, p. 639, § 2 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-6-87), permitted the final recording

of civil proceedings by microfilm in lieu of in ‘‘well-bound’’ volumes, provided proper indices and adequate equipment are maintained in addition to the necessary personnel for viewing these records. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-23. No county governing authority is under any duty to purchase microequipment. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 66-23.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Cook v. State, 340 S.E.2d 891 (Ga. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cook v. State, 340 S.E.2d 891 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “Although copies of documents are commonly made photostatically these days, see OCGA § 15-6-87, that has not always been the case, and nothing in OCGA § 24-7-20 (which is descended from an Act approved December 21, 1819, long before photostatic copy machines had been invented)…”

Reeb v. Daniels Lincoln-Mercury Co., 389 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” We note also that microfilming records is specifically “authorized” by OCGA § 15-6-87 (a). Accordingly, we find no merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by allowing the clerk to assess microfilming costs.”

Kicklighter v. McIntosh Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 694 F. App'x 711 (11th Cir. 2017). “See O.C.G.A. §§ 15-6-87, 15-6-88; see also Pellitteri, 776 F.”

Kicklighter v. McIntosh Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 162 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (2016). · cites it 2× “Thus, the third Manders factor weighs in favor of immunity. d. Liability for and Payment of Adverse Judgments Finally, the Court must consider “who is responsible for judgments against the entity.”

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.