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.
No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction: (1) Upon any curve; (2) Upon the approach to or near the crest of a grade where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of another vehicle approaching from either direction; (3) Where such turn cannot be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic; or (4) Where a prohibition is posted.
History
(Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 67; Code 1933, § 68A-602, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 633, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Cason v. Columbus, 148 Ga. App. 208, 250 S.E.2d 836 (1978); Hashemy v. State, 167 Ga. App. 96, 306 S.E.2d 65 (1983); State v. Webb, 193 Ga.
App. 2, 386 S.E.2d 891 (1989); Neiswonger v. Janics, 196 Ga. App. 607, 396 S.E.2d 553 (1990).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 246. C.J.S. - 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 53, 54, 56. 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 706. ALR. - Reciprocal duties of drivers of
automobiles or other vehicles proceeding in the same direction, 47 A.L.R. 703; 62 A.L.R. 970; 104 A.L.R. 485. Automobiles: liability for U-turn collisions, 53 A.L.R.4th 849.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1983–2013 · leading case:
State v. Hester, 602 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Hester, 602 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 16× “" [4] Instead, the suspicious activity in the case at bar was a traffic offense committed in the officer's presence: an impermissible U-turn in violation of OCGA § 40-6-121. Smith explained at the motion hearing: "You would have to go up the hill and around a curve.”
State v. Holler, 479 S.E.2d 780 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 12× “However, the findings of fact and law by the trial court, after its examination of the conflicting evidence given at the suppression hearing, tacitly included a determination that the State failed to carry its burden of showing the officer had probable cause to believe that…”
State v. Webb, 386 S.E.2d 891 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The trial court concluded that, insofar as appellee’s u-turn was technically not in violation of OCGA § 40-6-121, the evidence should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest.”
Sieveking v. State, 469 S.E.2d 235 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Sieveking appeals from his conviction and sentence on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive, OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1), and making an illegal U-turn, OCGA § 40-6-121 (1). On appeal, the State did not timely submit a…”
State v. Barnard, 740 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “We note that that implied consent notice appropriately notified Barnard that her privilege to drive on the highways of this state would be suspended if she refused the testing.”
Ploof Truck Lines, Inc. v. Bennett, 472 S.E.2d 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “” Ploof’s attempted U-turn was allegedly negligence per se for violating OCGA § 40-6-121 (3). Ploof and Protective answered, admitting only that a Ploof employee was operating a White tractor in the course and scope of his employment at the time and place of the collision, but…”
Neiswonger v. Janics, 396 S.E.2d 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Appellant's motion was predicated upon the contention that, as a matter of law, appellee was undertaking an improper U-turn or left turn in violation of OCGA §§ 40-6-121 (3) and 40-6-123 (a). However, the evidence did not exclude the possibility that appellee was merely moving…”
Renschen v. State, 484 S.E.2d 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Timothy Renschen was found guilty by a jury of making an improper U-turn, OCGA § 40-6-121, and DUI, OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1); (a) (4).”
State v. Lachelle Antoninette Barnard (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2 The state contends that the trial court erred in excluding the Intoxilyzer test results on the basis of its finding that the arresting officer had informed Barnard that her out-of- state license would be suspended if she did not submit to the state-administered breath test,…”
Hashemy v. State, 306 S.E.2d 65 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “633, 663) (now OCGA § 40-6-121) in that she made an improper U-turn on a street within the city limits of Atlanta, Georgia.”
— 40-6-121(1) — 1 case
State v. Hester, 602 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
“" [4] Instead, the suspicious activity in the case at bar was a traffic offense committed in the officer's presence: an impermissible U-turn in violation of OCGA § 40-6-121. Smith explained at the motion hearing: "You would have to go up the hill and around a curve.”
— 40-6-121(3) — 1 case
State v. Holler, 479 S.E.2d 780 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
“However, the findings of fact and law by the trial court, after its examination of the conflicting evidence given at the suppression hearing, tacitly included a determination that the State failed to carry its burden of showing the officer had probable cause to believe that…”
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.