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

O.C.G.A. § 36-9-11 (2019)

Destruction or damaging of any county building or its appurtenances or furniture

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

Any person who designedly destroys, injures, or defaces any public building or its appurtenances or furniture or uses the same for an indecent purpose shall be liable for the damages and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 472; Code 1868, § 534; Code 1873, § 500; Code 1882, § 500; Civil Code 1895, § 358; Penal Code 1895, § 725; Civil Code 1910, § 407; Penal Code 1910, § 777; Code 1933, §§ 91-707, 91-9903.

Annotations

Cross references. - Criminal penalty for destroying, damaging, or otherwise affecting government property, § 16-7-24.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Applicability to town jail. - This section applies to all holdings owned by a state or the state's subdivisions, including a town jail. Shepherd v. State, 16 Ga. App. 248, 85 S.E. 83 (1915).

Urinating on courthouse door-facing a misdemeanor. - Entering a courthouse and urinating against the door-facing therein is a misdemeanor, whether as a result thereof the building is injured or defaced or not. Smith v. State, 110 Ga. 292, 35 S.E. 166 (1900).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Malicious Mischief and Related Offenses, §§ 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 22.

C.J.S. - 54 C.J.S., Malicious or Criminal Mischief, §§ 1, 2.

- - - - - - - - - -

CHAPTER 10 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS

Sec.

36-10-1. Contracts to be in writing and entered on minutes.

36-10-2. Letting of contracts for public works [Repealed].

36-10-2.1. Letting by counties with population of 800,000 or more.

36-10-2.2. Letting by certain counties with population of more than 150,000.

36-10-3 through 36-10-5 [Repealed].

Cross references. - Power of counties to contract for public road purposes, § 32-4-60 et seq.

Law reviews. - For annual survey article on local government law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (2000).

For note, "The Legal Nature of Public Purpose Authorities: Governmental, Private, or Neither," see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 680 (1974).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Home Indem. Co. v. Battey Mach. Co., 109 Ga. App. 322, 136 S.E.2d 193 (1964).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Applicability of state statutes or municipal regulations to contracts for performance of work on land owned or leased by the federal government, 91 A.L.R. 779; 115 A.L.R. 371; 127 A.L.R. 827.

Construction and effect of "changed conditions" clause in public works or construction contract with state or its subdivision, 56 A.L.R.4th 1042.

Public contracts: low bidder's monetary relief against state or local agency for nonaward of contract, 65 A.L.R.4th 93.

What are "prevailing wages," or the like, for purposes of state statute requiring payment of prevailing wages on public works projects, 7 A.L.R.5th 400.

Employers subject to state statutes requiring payment of prevailing wages on public works projects, 7 A.L.R.5th 444.

What projects involve work subject to state statutes requiring payment of prevailing wages on public works projects, 10 A.L.R.5th 337.

Employees' private right of action to enforce state statute requiring payment of prevailing wages on public works projects, 10 A.L.R.5th 360.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Bryan Ivey v. State, 885 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bryan Ivey v. State, 885 S.E.2d 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Ivey argues that his conduct falls within OCGA § 36-9-11, destruction or damaging of any county building, which is a misdemeanor, as well as OCGA § 16-7- 24 (a), interference with government property, which is a felony, so he should have been prosecuted for the misdemeanor.”
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.