O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-60-26 (2019)

Unlawful to issue backdated license, permit, or other authorizing document; documents issued in violation void in entirety; criminal penalty for violations

✓ 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

(a) It shall be unlawful for any county, municipal corporation, or other issuing authority to issue any backdated license, permit, or other authorizing document, including but not limited to any building permit, sign permit, occupation tax certificate, zoning action, subdivision of land, final plat, or other similar authorization, in any territorial or geographic area which, due to the formation of a county, incorporation of a municipality, annexation or deannexation of territory, or other action, is no longer within the regulatory jurisdiction of said issuing authority. For purposes of this Code section, a license, permit, or other authorizing document shall be considered to be backdated if it in any manner purports to have been issued or have become effective prior to its actual date of issuance.

(b) A license, permit, or other authorizing document in violation of this Code section shall be void in its entirety, and no person shall acquire any rights thereunder.

(c) Any county or municipal officer or employee who knowingly violates this Code section shall be upon conviction guilty of a misdemeanor.

History

Code 1981, § 36-60-26, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 154, § 1/HB 975.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2008, p. 154, § 2/HB 975, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘The General Assem-

bly declares its belief that this Act is declaratory of previously existing law; and the passage of this Act shall not be construed to imply that prior law was to the contrary.’’

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Acquisition of vested rights in permits. - Void county sign ordinance could not be used as the basis for the denial of sign companies’ applications for permits to construct billboards, and the invalidity of the ordinance resulted in there being no valid restriction on the construction of billboards in the county. Accordingly, the

sign companies obtained vested rights in the issuance of the billboard construction permits which the companies sought before the city ordinances were enacted. Fulton County v. Action Outdoor Adver., JV, LLC, 289 Ga. 347, 711 S.E.2d 682 (2011).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprinting required for violators. - Offenses arising under O.C.G.A. § 36-60-26 are designated as offenses for

which those charged are to be fingerprinted. 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-1.

CHAPTER 61 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT Sec.

Sec.

Short title. Definitions. Legislative findings and declaration of necessity.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2011–2011 · leading case: Fulton Cnty. v. Action Outdoor Advert., Jv, LLC., 711 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fulton Cnty. v. Action Outdoor Advert., Jv, LLC., 711 S.E.2d 682 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the cities’ argument, the sign companies’ vested rights are not voided by application of OCGA § 36-60-26, which prohibits the issuance by a county of backdated sign permits for an area no longer within its jurisdiction due to formation of a new city or annexation.”

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.