O.C.G.A.
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.
There is found and declared a necessity for a uniform state-wide livestock law embracing all public roads in the state and all other property.
History
(Ga. L. 1953, Jan.-Feb. Sess., p. 380, § 1; Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 395, § 1; Ga. L. 1955, p. 633, § 1.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Preemption of local laws. - O.C.G.A. § 4-3-1 specifically finds and declares a necessity for a uniform state-wide
livestock law embracing all public roads in the state, therefore, it expressly preempts local laws on the subject by declaring the
Page: 10
Date: 06/14/13 Time: 10:43:52
GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP
need for uniformity. Hortman v. Guy, 242 Ga. App. 174, 529 S.E.2d 182 (2000). Cited in Tennessee, Ala. & Ga. Ry. v.
Andrews, 117 Ga. App. 164, 159 S.E.2d 460 (1968); Cotton v. State, 263 Ga. App. 843, 589 S.E.2d 610 (2003).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. - 1C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Animals, § 33.
Am. Jur. 2d. - 1C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Animals, § 33.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1990–2020 · leading case:
Hortman v. Guy, 529 S.E.2d 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
Hortman v. Guy, 529 S.E.2d 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 4-3-1. The 1953 and 1955 Acts abolishing the open range and requiring that uniformly over the State the owners of livestock must fence them or take the necessary steps to prevent them from straying to the roads and the lands of others, provided: “No owner shall permit…”
Evancho v. Baker, 397 S.E.2d 166 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Appellant first enumerates as error the trial court’s ruling that appellee owned the land, but did not control the cattle under OCGA § 4-3-1 et seq. Section 4-3-3 of the Georgia Code prohibits an “owner” from permitting livestock to run at large or to stray onto public roads.”
Billy M. Faulkner v. Sonia L. Crumbley (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “The Faulkners further contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment as to the Crumbleys’ theory of liability under Section 6-34 of the Jasper County Code of Ordinances because the ordinance is preempted by OCGA § 4-3-1, et seq. Because the evidence…”
Cotton v. State, 589 S.E.2d 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” The Cottons contend that they could not be convicted of violating OCGA § 4-3-3 because it is not a criminal statute and that allowing livestock to run at large is punished under OCGA § 4-3-12.”
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.