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.
(a) In addition to other rule-making requirements imposed by law, each agency shall: (1) Adopt as a rule a description of its organization, stating the general course and method of its operations and the methods whereby the public may obtain information or make submissions or requests; (2) Adopt rules of practice setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency; (3) Make available for public inspection all rules and all other written statements of policy or interpretations formulated, adopted, or used by the agency in the discharge of its functions; and (4) Make available for public inspection all final orders, decisions, and opinions except those expressly made confidential or privileged by statute. (b) No agency rule, order, or decision shall be valid or effective against any person or party nor may it be invoked by the agency for any
purpose until it has been published or made available for public inspection as required in this Code section. This provision is not applicable in favor of any person or party who has actual knowledge thereof.
History
Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 3; Ga. L. 1965, p. 283, § 5.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Re-
searching Georgia Law,’’ see 34 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 741 (2015).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS WIC vendor handbook. - Although Women, Infants, and Children Program vendor handbook was subject to the publication and inspection requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-13-3(a), as defendants all had actual knowledge of the rules and regulations in question, these rules and regulations were valid and effective against the defendants, despite the lack of required publication by the Department of Human Resources. So v. Ledbetter, 209 Ga. App. 666, 434 S.E.2d 517 (1993). Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s rules. - Forensic Sciences Division of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is exempt under O.C.G.A. § 35-3-155 from the requirement of O.C.G.A. § 50-13-3(b) that it publish its rules for granting permits for the administration of breath, blood, and
urine tests. State v. Bowen, 274 Ga. 1, 547 S.E.2d 286 (2001). Forensic testing procedures. - Standard Operating Procedures for urinalysis testing of the Division of Forensic Sciences of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation satisfied the requirements regarding adoption and publication of rules under O.C.G.A. § 50-13-3. State v. Cooper, 229 Ga. App. 97, 493 S.E.2d 1 (1997). Cited in Cullers v. Home Credit Co., 130 Ga. App. 441, 203 S.E.2d 544 (1973); Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs. v. Daniels, 137 Ga. App. 706, 224 S.E.2d 820 (1976); Mowery v. State, 234 Ga. App. 801, 507 S.E.2d 821 (1998); Olvera v. Univ. Sys. of Georgia’s Bd. of Regents, 298 Ga. 425, 782 S.E.2d 436 (2016).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, § 193. C.J.S. - 73 C.J.S., Public Administrative Law and Procedure, §§ 161 et seq., 192, 196, 204. U.L.A. - Model State Administrative Procedure Act (U.L.A.) § 3-101 et seq.
ALR. - What constitutes preliminary drafts or notes provided by or for state or local governmental agency, or intra-agency memorandums, exempt from disclosure or inspection under state freedom of information acts, 26 A.L.R.4th 639.
Notes of Decisions
Olvera v. Univ. Sys. of Georgia's Bd. of Regents, 782 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, the [residency requirements constitute] an “interpretive rule” [that falls within an exception to the procedural requirements of the APApursuant to OCGA §§ 50-13-3 and 50-13-4,] not a “rule” [subject to theAPA] within the meaningof [OCGA] § 50-13-10.”
So v. Ledbetter, 434 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Thus, although OCGA § 49-2-11 (c) authorizes DHR to promulgate rules and regulations for the WIC program, under the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), OCGA § 50-13-3 et seq., DHR’s rules and regulations concerning the operation of the WIC program must be published…”
Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 499 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “But we find no direct authority for such a rule outside the rulemaking requirement of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-3 (b), which is not applicable here.”
State v. Bowen, 547 S.E.2d 286 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 4× “The ruling was predicated on the failure of the Forensic Sciences Division of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (the division) to publish its rules for granting permits for the administration of breath, blood and urine tests under the BUI statutes, which the trial court…”
Helmeci v. State, 498 S.E.2d 326 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Helmeci claimed that because the DFS had not published regulations governing the equipment and procedures used to test urine samples taken pursuant to OCGA § 40-5-55, those methods were not “approved” pursuant to § 40-6-392 and the APA.”
Dayoub v. Yates-Astro Termite Pest Control Co., 521 S.E.2d 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 50-13-3 (b); 50-13-5; 50-13-7. Therefore, such rules and regulations were published by the Secretary of State under statutory authority within the meaning of OCGA § 24-1-4.”
Dawson v. State, 518 S.E.2d 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Dawson argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding the drug dog because the Richmond Hill Police Department has not published rules regarding the use of drug dogs, as he contends is required by OCGA § 50-13-3. Regardless of the merits of this argument,…”
Enchanted Valley RV Park Resort, Ltd. v. Weese, 526 S.E.2d 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 50-13-3 (b); 50-13-5; 50-13-7. Therefore, such rules and regulations were published by the Secretary of State under statutory authority within the meaning of OCGA § 24-1-4.”
Dep't of Educ. v. Kitchens, 387 S.E.2d 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 50-13-3 (b); 50-13-4 (d). Judgment affirmed.”
Roy E. Davis & Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 353 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 3A-104 (now OCGA § 50-13-4) as an exception to the procedural requirements of the APA, see OCGA §§ 50-13-3 and 50-13-4, and was not an “agency rule” within the meaning of Code Ann.”
Mowery v. State, 507 S.E.2d 821 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 50-13-3. We note that pursuant to OCGA § 35-3-155, which became effective May 1, 1997, the APA does not apply to testing by the GBI’s Division of Forensic Sciences.”
— 50-13-3(a)(2) — 1 case
— 50-13-3(b) — 2 cases
Monticello, Ltd. v. City of Atlanta, 499 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
“But we find no direct authority for such a rule outside the rulemaking requirement of the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-3 (b), which is not applicable here.”
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.