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.
(a) The district attorneys of this state shall be authorized to render such assistance to the department as the department may request and to file and prosecute, in any of the several courts of this state or of the United States, such civil or criminal actions on behalf of the department as may be necessary to ensure the proper enforcement of this article. (b) When acting pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section, the district attorney shall represent the department and the department shall be the sole client of the district attorney.
History
Ga. L. 1977, p. 722, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 1816, § 3; Ga. L. 1989, p. 861, § 7; Ga. L. 1992, p. 1833, § 5.
Annotations
Cross references. Supplemental compensation for district
attorney rendering assistance under section, § 15-18-11. Law reviews. For note on 1989 amendment to this Code section, see 6 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 227 (1989).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Employment of personnel by district attorney not specifically authorized. - Statute constitutes specific authorization for district attorneys to provide assistance to the Department of
Human Resources but does not specifically authorize the district attorney to employ personnel for that purpose. 1979 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U79-12.
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 79 Am. Jur. 2d, Welfare Laws, § 111.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1985–1999 · leading case:
Tyree v. State, 418 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 1992).
Tyree v. State, 418 S.E.2d 16 (Ga. 1992).
· cites it 12× “He relies on OCGA § 19-11-23 (b), which provides that when rendering assistance to the Department of Human Resources pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-23 (a), "the district attorney shall represent the department and the department shall be the sole client of the district attorney."…”
Neal v. State, 354 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The complaint, filed by the district attorney as authorized by OCGA § 19-11-23, was an action created primarily by OCGA § 19-11-7.”
Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 330 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 19-11-23. 3. Appellant contends that the trial court’s determination that she is liable for reimbursement of AFDC benefits violates her constitutional right of due process because she had no actual or constructive notice of such liability.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Brown, 443 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 19-11-23 (b). The litigation of additional issues such as custody, visitation, and legitimation would require the legal representation of parties not contemplated, and place the State in a potential conflict of interest.”
Dep't of Human Resources v. Smith, 517 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “This is an action filed pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-23 for recovery of child support from deféndant Smith based on allegations that plaintiff Georgia Department of Human Resources has provided support in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children to a minor child.”
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.