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

O.C.G.A. § 4-8-26 (2019)

Euthanasia for dogs with repeat offenses

✓ 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

A dog that is found, after notice and opportunity for hearing as provided by Code Section 4-8-23, to have caused a serious injury to a human on more than one occasion shall be euthanized; provided, however, that no injury occurring before July 1, 2012, shall count for purposes of this Code section.

History

(Code 1981, § 4-8-26, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 1290, § 4/HB 685.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2012, ‘‘this Code section’’ was substituted for ‘‘this subsection’’ at the end of the Code section.

Law reviews. - For article on the 2012 amendment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 180 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2012 · leading case: Stennette v. Miller, 729 S.E.2d 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stennette v. Miller, 729 S.E.2d 559 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “But we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Miller on Stennette’s claim that Miller negligently performed a voluntarily-undertaken duty to keep the dog away from her when she was at the house, because the evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to this *426 claim.”
Maureen Stennette v. Robin Miller (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “But we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Miller on Stennette’s claim that Miller negligently performed a voluntarily-undertaken duty to keep the dog away from her when she was at the house, because the evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to this claim.”
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.