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

O.C.G.A. § 4-13-3 (2019)

Prohibited acts

✓ 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

It shall be unlawful for the owner of any equine: (1) To commit a violation of Code Section 16-12-4, relating to cruelty to animals, which involves an equine owned by, possessed by, or in the custody or control of such person; (2) To fail to provide adequate food and water to such equine; (3) To fail to provide humane care for such equine; (4) To unnecessarily overload, overdrive, torment, or beat any equine or to cause the death of any equine in a cruel or inhumane manner; or (5) To interfere with or hinder the Commissioner or his designated agent or any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or other law enforcement officer in carrying out his duties under this chapter.

History

(Code 1981, § 4-13-3, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2398, § 2.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Due process issues. - Requiring hearings before impounding horses under the Georgia Humane Care for Equines Act, O.C.G.A. § 4-13-1 et seq., could cause further harm to animals being deprived of adequate food and water, thus, there was no due process violation and defendant agency officials had qualified immunity on

plaintiff animal owner’s claim; the safeguards of O.C.G.A. §§ 4-13-3 and 4-13-4(a) and (b), in connection with any seizure, and the procedure for requesting a hearing under O.C.G.A. § 2-2-9.1(d) after any seizure were adequate. Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2009–2009 · leading case: Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “" O.C.G.A. § 4-13-3. [3] The district court noted that the record contained no information regarding the nature or resolution of Reams' action in Superior Court challenging the GDA's disposition of her administrative claims, and that Reams did not allege that her state-court…”
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.