O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 26-5-2 (2019)
Legislative intent
✓ 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
The purpose of this article is to provide for the classification and systematic evaluation of various programs designed for the treatment and therapeutic rehabilitation of drug dependent persons; to ensure that every governing body which operates a drug abuse treatment and education program is licensed to do so; and to meet the rehabilitative needs of drug dependent persons while safeguarding their individual liberties.
History
Ga. L. 1972, p. 714, § 2; Ga. L. 1985, p. 476, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 26; Ga. L. 2017, p. 307, § 2/SB 88.
Annotations
Law reviews. For note, “The Diversion of Drug Abus-
ers from the Criminal Justice System: Georgia’s Proposed Legislation,” see 23 Emory L.J. 1071 (1974).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Doe v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 628 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2010).
Doe v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 628 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2010). “This regulatory prescription was adopted pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 26-5-2 et seq. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs.”
Jane Doe No. 1 v. Fulton-Dekalb Hosp. Auth. (11th Cir. 2010). “A, supra, hospital employers are generally hesitant to share much information about past employees for fear of legal consequences; as a result, requiring more diligence in this area could merely send future human resources personnel on fools’ errands.”
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.