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.
The purpose of this title is to provide a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation facilities of the state, the counties, and municipalities of Georgia. The legislative intent is to provide an effective legal basis for the organization, administration, and operation of an efficient, modern system of public roads and other modes of transportation.
History
Code 1933, § 95A-102, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS ascertain and fix the status of the public right of use of every road in Georgia. Jordan v. Way, 235 Ga. 496, 220 S.E.2d 258 (1975). Sign permits. - Although ground had not been broken on a proposed inter-
Purpose of the Georgia Code of Public Transportation is organization, administration, and operation of an efficient, modern system of public roads as between the state, counties, and municipalities; the statute’s purpose is not to
change as of the date an applicant submitted applications for permits for outdoor advertising signs, the Georgia Department of Transportation’s denial of the applications comported with O.C.G.A. §§ 32-1-2, 32-6-74(a), and 32-6-75(a)(18) because the interchange project had progressed to a point such that it constituted an interchange for purposes of § 32-6-75(a)(18) and the proposed sign locations were within the 500-foot blocked out zone established by § 32-6-75(a)(18). Eagle West, LLC v. Ga. DOT, 312 Ga. App. 882, 720 S.E.2d 317 (2011). State DOT not liable for failing to erect road closure signs on county road. - Because an accident occurred on a county-owned road and did not occur on a part of the state highway system upon which the DOT owed a duty to motorists, and the couple’s expert’s affidavit could not establish a legal duty to erect signs or to take other steps to inform drivers of the closure of the county-owned road, summary judgment for the DOT was proper. Diamond v. DOT, 326 Ga. App. 189, 756 S.E.2d 277 (2014).
County’s duty to maintain dedicated roads in subdivision. - Trial court erred by granting mandamus relief under O.C.G.A. § 9-6-20 with regard to a property owner seeking to compel a county to maintain roads in a subdivision because while the county had accepted dedication of the streets, the county still was vested with the discretion to decide whether to open all of the roads or close any of the roads, and the trial court was required to determine whether the county’s decisions were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable or a gross abuse of discretion as nowhere in the judgment was that standard articulated. Burke County v. Askin, 291 Ga. 697, 732 S.E.2d 416 (2012). Cited in Fulton County v. Davidson, 253 Ga. 734, 325 S.E.2d 135 (1985); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998); Evans Timber Co. v. Central of Ga. R.R., 239 Ga. App. 262, 519 S.E.2d 706 (1999).
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Power to limit weight of vehicle or its load with respect to use of streets or highways, 75 A.L.R.2d 376.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case:
Burke Cnty. v. Askin, 732 S.E.2d 416 (Ga. 2012).
Burke Cnty. v. Askin, 732 S.E.2d 416 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 4× “3 See also OCGA § 32-1-2. 4 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in addressing the petition for a writ of mandamus under OCGA § 9-6-20.”
Evans Timber Co. v. Cent. of Georgia R.R., 519 S.E.2d 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The purpose and legislative intent of the GCPT [are] further set out in OCGA § 32-1-2, as follows: to provide a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation facilities of the state, the counties, and municipalities of Georgia.”
Diamond v. Dep't of Transp., 756 S.E.2d 277 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 32-1-2. Statutory and case law is clear that counties — not the DOT — “have control of and responsibility for all construction, maintenance, or other work related to the county road system.”
Sumter Cnty. v. Morris, 896 S.E.2d 571 (Ga. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 32-1-2. Within Title 32, OCGA § 32-1-3 (8) defines “dedication” as “the donation by the owner, either expressly or impliedly, and acceptance by the public of property for public road purposes, in accordance with statutory or common-law 22 provisions,” and OCGA § 32-1-3…”
Dep't of Transp. v. Carr, 564 S.E.2d 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “13 OCGA § 32-1-2. 14 See id.; Jordan v. Way, 235 Ga.”
Tuggle v. Helms, 499 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Code § 32-1-2 (1975), a guest in a car can recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident only if there is proof that the driver of the car acted with wanton or wilful misconduct.”
Eagle West, LLC v. Georgia Dep't of Transp., 720 S.E.2d 317 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “It also comports with OCGA § 32-1-2, which states: The purpose of [Title 32, which is known as the Georgia Code of Public Transportation and wherein lies the Outdoor Advertising Control Act] is to provide a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation…”
Kitchen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 453 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The purpose and legislative intent of the GCPT is further set out in OCGA § 32-1-2, as follows: to provide a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation facilities of the state, the counties, and municipalities of Georgia.”
Town of Register v. Fortner, 586 S.E.2d 54 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “, which was enacted in 1973 to revise, classify, consolidate and repeal other laws relating to all public roads and bridges, and to establish new laws relating thereto.”
Danbert v. North Georgia Land Ventures, LLC, 697 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 2× “6 Under OCGA § 32-1-2: “The purpose of this title is to provide a code of statutes for the public roads and other transportation facilities of the state, the counties, and municipalities of Georgia.”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The legislative intent is to provide an effective legal basis for the organization, administration, and operation of an efficient, modern system of public roads and other modes of transportation.”
Fulton Cnty. v. Davidson, 325 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 32-1-2. In furtherance of this purpose, the legislature obviously recognized the need for orderly planning and construction of public roads and highways.”
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.