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

O.C.G.A. § 36-72-4 (2019)

Permit required for developing land on which cemetery located

✓ 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

No known cemetery, burial ground, human remains, or burial object shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located for the purposes of developing or changing the use of any part of such land unless a permit is first obtained from the governing authority of the municipal corporation or county wherein the cemetery or burial ground is located, which shall have authority to permit such activity except as provided in Code Section 36-72-14.

History

Code 1981, § 36-72-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 924, § 3.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Smith v. Pulaski County, 269 Ga. 688, 501 S.E.2d 213 (1998).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2015 · leading case: Verdi v. Wilkinson Cnty., 655 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Verdi v. Wilkinson Cnty., 655 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA§§ 36-72-4 (“No known cemetery, burial ground, human remains, or burial object shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located for the purposes of developing or changing the use of any part of such…”
City of Sandy Springs Et Al. v. Mills, 771 S.E.2d 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “2 With respect to this case, OCGA § 36-72-4 requires an owner of property that contains a burial ground to obtain a permit before developing the property or any portion thereof as follows: No known cemetery, burial ground, human remains or burial object shall be knowingly…”
Smith v. Pulaski Cnty., 501 S.E.2d 213 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 2× “Because we find that implementation of the Act is discretionary and thus imposed no affirmative obligation on Pulaski County to protect the Lamkin cemetery or upon Mathis to apply for a permit under the Act, see OCGA § 36-72-4, we need not address appellants’ remaining…”
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.