Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1919, p. 125, § 15; Code 1933, § 84-321; Ga. L. 1952, p. 457, § 8; Ga. L. 1974, p. 162, § 10; Ga. L. 1982, p. 903, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 43; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3318, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1527, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 741, § 1; Ga. L. 2010, p. 748, § 2/HB 231.)
- Exception for buildings costing less than $100,000 is not unconstitutionally vague. Meyer von Bremen v. Georgia State Bd. of Architects, 259 Ga. 842, 389 S.E.2d 213 (1990).
- There is a rational relationship between the cost of a building and the stated purpose of O.C.G.A. § 43-4-14 "to safeguard life and property." Meyer von Bremen v. Georgia State Bd. of Architects, 259 Ga. 842, 389 S.E.2d 213 (1990).
Language "with or without other parts or appurtenances" in O.C.G.A. § 43-4-1(2) (now paragraph (4)) was sufficiently clear to notify an unregistered person that, for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 43-4-14, the cost of a building for which the unregistered person designed only the foundation, floor, exterior walls, and roof would also include the cost of such interior parts and appurtenances as would be reasonably necessary for the building to become functional for the purposes for which the building was designed. Meyer von Bremen v. Georgia State Bd. of Architects, 259 Ga. 842, 389 S.E.2d 213 (1990).
- Design and supervision of building of fire station by professional engineer employee of county does not constitute unlawful practice of architecture since building fire station falls within legislative definitions of both professions and because this title explicitly recognizes some overlap between the professions. Georgia Ass'n of Am. Inst. of Architects v. Gwinnett County, 238 Ga. 277, 233 S.E.2d 142 (1977).
Structure designed to serve as commercial office and residence not within residence exemption of this section. Dudley v. Monsour, 155 Ga. App. 269, 270 S.E.2d 686 (1980) (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-4-14).
Plaintiff has burden of proving entitlement to an exemption under provision that no person shall be required to register as an architect in order to make plans and specifications for or supervise erection, enlargement, or alteration of any one- or two-family residence buildings, regardless of cost. To rule otherwise would be to require that any defendant in suit to collect for professional services must negate every possible exception to applicable licensing statute in order to raise statute as a defense. Dudley v. Monsour, 155 Ga. App. 269, 270 S.E.2d 686 (1980).
Cited in Georgia State Bd. for Examination, Qualification & Registration of Architects v. Arnold, 249 Ga. 593, 292 S.E.2d 830 (1982).
- Exemption in O.C.G.A. § 43-4-14 clearly authorizes a registered professional engineer to draft and file engineering plans, drawings, and specifications that contain incidental architectural work. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 82-26.
- Responsibility of one acting as architect for defects or insufficiency of work attributable to plans, 25 A.L.R.2d 1085.
Single or isolated transactions as falling within provisions of commercial or occupational licensing requirements, 93 A.L.R.2d 90.
Liability to one injured in course of construction, based upon architect's alleged failure to carry out supervisory responsibilities, 59 A.L.R.3d 869.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1990-03-01
Citation: 259 Ga. 842, 389 S.E.2d 213, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 90
Snippet: registered by appellee as architects. OCGA §§ 43-4-10; 43-4-14. The term “practice of architecture” is defined
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1964-02-06
Citation: 135 S.E.2d 388, 219 Ga. 611, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 345
Snippet: 453 (1) (9 SE2d 760); Brown v. Newsome, 192 Ga. 43 (4) (14 SE2d 470); Kilgore v. Tiller, 194 Ga. 527 (22