O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 22-4-11 (2019)

Adoption of rules; appeal and review

✓ 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 several public entities are authorized to make such rules as may be necessary to provide for the administration of the financial assistance authorized by this chapter. (b) The determination by the several public entities of the amount of any payment and to whom it shall be paid may be appealed and judicially reviewed in the manner prescribed by Chapter 13 of Title 50, the ‘‘Georgia Administrative Procedure Act.’’

History

Ga. L. 1973, p. 512, § 11.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Judicial review provided by Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. T. 50, C. 13) is applicable to ‘‘several public entities’’ as defined by Ga. L. 1973, p. 512, § 2 (see O.C.G.A. § 22-4-2) as well as to those entities defined as an ‘‘agency’’ by Ga. L. 1975, p. 404, § 3 (see O.C.G.A. § 50-13-2(1)). Wirt v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 139 Ga. App. 592, 229 S.E.2d 100 (1976). Amendments to definition of ‘‘agency’’ will not influence such applicability. - ‘‘Several public entities’’ and the ‘‘agency’’ being alternative categories, amendments to the definition of ‘‘agency’’ will not influence the applicability of Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. T. 50, C. 13) to an entity which falls within the ‘‘several public entities’’ category. Wirt v. Metropolitan Atlanta

Rapid Transit Auth., 139 Ga. App. 592, 229 S.E.2d 100 (1976). Expenses of litigation, including attorney fees, must be paid by city, whether or not the city has established rules under Ga. L. 1973, p. 512, § 11 (see O.C.G.A. § 22-4-11) for administering the payments; in the absence of such rules and regulations, mandamus is an appropriate means by which to compel the performance of city officials in compliance with Ga. L. 1973, p. 512, § 5 (see O.C.G.A. § 22-4-6). Jackson v. Alford, 244 Ga. 125, 259 S.E.2d 68 (1979). Cited in City of Atlanta v. Rosebush, 146 Ga. App. 99, 245 S.E.2d 440 (1978); Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Wallace, 243 Ga. 491, 254 S.E.2d 822 (1979).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Torrente v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 603 S.E.2d 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
Torrente v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 603 S.E.2d 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “592, 593 ( 229 SE2d 100 ) (1976); OCGA § 22-4-11 (b). See OCGA § 50-13-19 (h).”
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.