O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-1-8 (2019)

Construction and maintenance of private roads

✓ 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

It shall be unlawful for any official, officer, or employee of the department, the State Road and Tollway Authority, the Georgia Highway Authority, or any similar authority or of any county or municipality to authorize the construction or maintenance of any private road.

History

Code 1933, § 95A-1102, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 1251, § 2-1.

Annotations

Cross references. - Georgia Highway

Authority, § 32-10-1 et seq. State Road and Tollway Authority, § 32-10-60 et seq. Conflicts of interest, § 45-10-20 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Compensated work on private property not prohibited. - O.C.G.A. § 32-1-8 does not prohibit a county from performing grading work on private prop-

erty with county equipment and materials at rates established in a published schedule. Woodard v. Smith, 254 Ga. 39, 325 S.E.2d 377 (1985).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Remuneration does not render work on private property lawful. - Even for payment, a county may not lawfully scrape privately-owned driveways; the county’s collection of a fee for provid-

ing this service would not, given the plain language of the statute, make the transaction lawful. 1976 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U76-24.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1985–1985 · leading case: Woodard v. Smith, 325 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. 1985).
Woodard v. Smith, 325 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “It further contends that where, as here, the county commissioners have acted so as to make profitable use of resources which otherwise would be idled, their discretion should not be disturbed absent fraud or abuse.”
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.