Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-72-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-72-4 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-72-4

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 72 information not found

ARTICLE 2 SERVICE DELIVERY

36-72-4. Permit required for developing land on which cemetery located.

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.

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

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

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

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-72-4

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Nuckles v. State, 853 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 21, 2020 | 310 Ga. 624

...phrases similar to “owner or occupier of real property.” See also OCGA §§ 2-6- 39 (b) & (c) (addressing authority of soil and water conservation supervisors to enter land); 16-11-38 (prohibiting wearing a mask on another’s property without written permission); 36-72-4 (prohibiting the disturbance of a cemetery without a proper permit); and 51-3-1 (addressing premises liability). However, she fails to show how the legislature’s use of similar language in these statutes, each addressing different subject m...
Copy

Smith v. Pulaski Cnty., 269 Ga. 688 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 8, 1998 | 501 S.E.2d 213, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 1937

...nted, discretionary statute. 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 enumerations of error concerning collateral estoppel and the Act’s application to suspected burial grounds. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.