O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-3-25 (2019)

Recordation of survey and plat; conclusive effect; subsequent changes of boundary line

✓ 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

Upon the making of a decision by the Secretary of State pursuant to Code Section 36-3-24 or in case no protest or exceptions are filed within the 30 days, the Secretary of State shall cause the survey and plat to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose, whereupon the same shall be final and conclusive as to the boundary line in dispute. When the boundary line in dispute has been established as final and conclusive as provided in this Code section, the same boundary line shall not again be subject to the procedures set forth in this article, and such boundary line may subsequently be changed only in accordance with Article 1 of this chapter, provided that nothing contained in this sentence shall affect any boundary line dispute in question on July 1, 1980, until the dispute is settled.

History

Ga. L. 1899, p. 24, § 4; Civil Code 1910, § 476; Code 1933, § 23-406; Ga. L. 1980, p. 1178, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 36.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1980, p. 1178, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly,

provided that nothing in that Act, which added the last two sentences to this Code section, shall affect any boundary line disputes already in question, until such disputes are settled.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Mandamus cannot dictate where boundary line to be located. - Trial court erred by granting a county mandamus relief in a county boundary line dispute action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq., because while mandamus was authorized to compel the Georgia Secretary of State to do certain tasks, it was not authorized to dictate where the boundary line was to be located. Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730, 755 S.E.2d 760 (2014). Secretary has discretion in con-

ducting hearing. - On remand of a county boundary dispute under O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq., a trial court erred by proscribing the Secretary of State from holding a new hearing or considering additional evidence before determining the boundary between two counties; O.C.G.A. § 36-3-24 gave the Secretary broad discretion in making the Secretary’s determination. Kemp v. Monroe County, 298 Ga. 67, 779 S.E.2d 330 (2015). Cited in Fine v. Dade County, 198 Ga. 655, 32 S.E.2d 246 (1944).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2015 · leading case: Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 755 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 755 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 8× “OCGA § 36-3-25. As the statutory language makes clear, the Secretary’s overall duty under this scheme is to ascertain the “true boundary line” between the counties.”

Kemp v. Monroe Cnty.; Bibb Cnty. v. Monroe Cnty., 779 S.E.2d 330 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “See generallyOCGA § 36-3-25 (imposing upon Secretary of State the obligation to record the survey and plat not within any particular time but “[u]pon the making of a decision.”

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.