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

O.C.G.A. § 36-42-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This chapter may be referred to as the ‘‘Downtown Development Authorities Law.’’

History

Ga. L. 1981, p. 1744, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article surveying developments in Georgia local govern-

ment law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 187 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Underground Atlanta is a public works. - Underground Atlanta was constructed under the Downtown Development Authorities Act and is a proper project under the Downtown Development Authorities Act; accordingly, the Underground Atlanta project falls within the

definition of ‘‘project’’ in O.C.G.A. § 36-42-3(6) and the totality of the agreements between the city and Underground Festival, Inc., clearly contemplates a public works project. City of Atlanta v. United Elec. Co., 202 Ga. App. 239, 414 S.E.2d 251 (1991).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Nations v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 338 S.E.2d 240 (Ga. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nations v. Downtown Dev. Auth., 338 S.E.2d 240 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “III), and OCGA § 36-42-1 et seq., The Downtown Development Authorities Law.”
Frazen v. Downtown Dev. Auth. of Atlanta, 309 Ga. 411 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 36-42-1 et seq. This statute enables downtown development authorities to issue bonds to finance certain “projects,” which are defined as the “acquisition, construction, installation, modification, renovation, or rehabilitation of land, interests in land, buildings,…”
City of Atlanta v. United Elec. Co., 414 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The record shows that Ferguson, White & Chandler did not pay United for services and materials provided on the project, and Ferguson, White & Chandler has declared bankruptcy. The city’s contention that Underground Atlanta is not a public works project is not only without…”
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.