O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 19-11-24 (2019)

Conformity with federal law intended; adoption of necessary regulations authorized

✓ 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

Nothing in this article is intended to conflict with any federal law or to result in the loss of federal funds. The department may adopt regulations necessary to prevent conflict with federal law or the loss of federal funds.

History

Ga. L. 1973, p. 192, § 19.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1984–1985 · leading case: Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 330 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cox v. Dep't of Human Resources, 330 S.E.2d 120 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Clearly, nothing in the Act is intended to conflict with any federal law (OCGA § 19-11-24), and we perceive no conflict between this Act, and the actions taken by DHR thereunder, and the federal statutes and regulations cited by appellant.”

Peterson v. Moffitt, 319 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. 1984). “See OCGA § 19-11-13; § 19-11-24; 42 USC § 654 (4). Subsequently, the Department filed a civil paternity action pursuant to OCGA § 19-7-43 against Peterson, alleging that he is the father of Michael Jerrod Moffitt.”

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.