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.
Each agency shall provide by rule for the filing and prompt disposition of petitions for declaratory rulings as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the agency, provided that nothing herein shall limit or impair the right of an agency to seek the opinion of the Attorney General on any question of law connected with the duties of the agency pursuant to Code Section 45-15-3 or any other applicable statutory or constitutional provision. Rulings disposing of petitions have the same status as agency decisions or orders in contested cases.
History
Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 12; Ga. L. 1965, p. 283, § 11.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Letter did not constitute declaratory ruling because director of agency did not issue the letter pursuant to any rule consistent with O.C.G.A. § 50-13-11. North Fulton Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 125, 453 S.E.2d 463 (1995). Declaratory ruling permissible if procedural rules followed. - While the law explicitly allowed a party to request a declaratory ruling from an administrative agency concerning the application of agency rules, the two associations failed to follow the appropriate procedures for obtaining an interpretation of a regulation from the state revenue department; thus, the associations were not entitled to a declaratory ruling since the associations circumvented the prescribed procedure for challenging the state revenue depart-
ment’s regulations. Ga. Oilmen’s Ass’n v. Ga. Dep’t of Revenue, 261 Ga. App. 393, 582 S.E.2d 549 (2003). Intervention in proceedings authorized. - Nonprofit insurance company should have been allowed to intervene in proceedings attacking the implementation of a plan of conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status adopted and approved by the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-20-34, which, after approval, became a binding agreement between the Commissioner and the company. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc. v. Deal, 244 Ga. App. 700, 536 S.E.2d 590 (2000). Cited in Age Int’l, Inc. v. Miller, 830 F. Supp. 1484 (N.D. Ga. 1993).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, §§ 70, 245. C.J.S. - 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Law and Procedure, § 161 et seq. 73A C.J.S., Public Administrative Law and Procedure, § 293.
U.L.A. - Model State Administrative Procedure Act (U.L.A.) § 2-103. ALR. - Applicability of stare decisis doctrine to decisions of administrative agencies, 79 A.L.R.2d 1126.
Notes of Decisions
North Fulton Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Roach, 453 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. 1995).
· cites it 10× “3 The trial court did not address this court’s question on remand regarding whether Roach’s letter exempting the relocation from CON review constituted a “declaratory ruling” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act, OCGA § 50-13-11, from which North Fulton could…”
Age Int'l, Inc. v. Miller, 830 F. Supp. 1484 (N.D. Ga. 1993).
· cites it 7× “” The administrative declaratory ruling procedure is outlined at O.C.G.A. §§ 50-13-11 through 50-13-20 and at Revenue Reg.”
Best Tobacco, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 604 S.E.2d 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1 Specifically, the superior court noted that Best Tobacco failed to pursue two available administrative procedures: one pursuant to OCGA § 48-11-18 (a) (applying to the Revenue Commissioner for a hearing regarding Best Tobacco’s requested refund) and one pursuant to OCGA §…”
HCA Health Servs., Inc. v. Roach, 439 S.E.2d 494 (Ga. 1994).
· cites it 2× “SHPA’s decisions regarding the facility; that SHPA alone has discretion to determine whether the CON laws apply to a particular facility; that in the instances complained of SHPA had acted, rather than failed to act, and mandamus was inappropriate to compel the agency to act in…”
Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
“OCGA § 50-13-11 explicitly allows a party to request a declaratory ruling from an administrative agency concerning the application of agency rules.”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc. v. Deal, 536 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The underlying declaratory judgment action was brought pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-11 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides: Each agency shall provide by rule for the filing and prompt disposition of petitions for declaratory rulings as to the applicability of any…”
North Fulton Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Roach, 440 S.E.2d 18 (Ga. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(a) North Fulton’s claim for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act asserted that SHPA’s letter determination that the relocation of the facility in question would not require a CON was a “declaratory ruling” under the APA, OCGA §§ 50-13-11; 50-13-19 (b). It is…”
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.