O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-26-7 (2019)

Injunctive relief of violations

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

Any violation of this chapter or any rules and regulations adopted and promulgated under this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance subject to abatement as provided in Code Section 31-5-9.

History

Ga. L. 1955, p. 252, § 11; Code 1933, § 88-1410, enacted by Ga. L.

1964, p. 499, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 31.

CHAPTER 27 CONTROL OF MASS GATHERINGS Sec.

Definitions. Permit requirement. Application for permit. Additional requirements for issuance of permit; denial, suspension, or revocation. Bond requirement; cash deposit in lieu of bond. Assessment for persons in attendance beyond number specified.

Annotations

Cross references. - Regulation of operators of motor vehicle racetracks, T. 43, C. 25.

Administrative Rules and Regulations. - Mass gatherings, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Hazards, Subject 511-3-2.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality. - Requirement of the Mass Gathering Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 27, T. 31, that a permit be obtained from the Department of Human Resources without specifying when, or even if, an application for a permit must be acted upon constitutes a prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Bo Fancy Prods., Inc. v. Rabun County Bd. of Comm'rs, 476 S.E.2d 743 (1996).

Because the Mass Gatherings Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 27, T. 31, fails to provide a time limit within which the Department of Human Resources (DHR) must act upon an application for a permit, the statute delegates overly broad discretion to the DHR and, therefore, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights. Bo Fancy Prods., Inc. v. Rabun County Bd. of Comm'rs, 267 Ga. 341, 478 S.E.2d 373 (1996).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Health, § 74.

C.J.S. - 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 32.

ALR. - Validity of statute or ordinance prohibiting or regulating holding of meeting in street, 25 A.L.R. 114.