O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 50-29-12 (2019)

Authorization for state agencies to establish pilot projects to serve as models for application of technology; reports

✓ 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) The General Assembly desires to promote economic development and efficient delivery of government services by encouraging state governmental agencies and private sector entities to conduct their business and transactions using electronic media. (b) All state agencies, authorities, and boards are authorized to establish pilot projects, which are to serve as models for the application of technology such as electronic signatures, through public and private partnerships with private companies providing such technology related services. Such pilot projects shall be approved by the Georgia Technology Authority. Such projects shall consider both commercial and government applications, be inclusive of major categories of electronic signature technology, and be established through a request for proposal process. The pilot projects are intended to provide a proof of concept for the application of technology, such as electronic signatures, and to serve to educate the General Assembly and the public at large as to the

benefits of electronic signatures as well as the role of state government in any future regulatory capacity. One such pilot project may involve digital signatures and the use of a public key infrastructure established by a service provider. Any private partner chosen for these pilot projects may establish user fees to pay for the cost of these services so that no state funds would be required. (c) State agencies establishing pilot projects shall submit quarterly progress reports on such projects to the Georgia Technology Authority. The authority shall monitor the success of such pilot projects and provide technical assistance to the extent that resources of the authority are available.

History

Code 1981, § 50-29-12, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1052, § 3; Ga. L. 1998, p. 232, § 5; Ga. L. 1999, p. 322, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 249, § 14; Ga. L. 2009, p. 133, § 5/HB 436.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Former subsection (d), concerning the creation of the Electronic Commerce Study Committee, was

repealed by its own terms effective December 31, 2002. Law reviews. - For article commenting on the enactment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 25 (1997). For note on 2000 amendment of this Code section, see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 280 (2000).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS No private cause of action in challenge to electronic filing system. - In a suit challenging a court’s electronic filing fee system, the trial court did not err when the court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’s claims because none of the statutes or rules cited by the

plaintiff provided a private cause of action for damages arising from any violation of the respective statute or rule. Best Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Reed Elsevier Inc., 334 Ga. App. 826, 780 S.E.2d 689 (2015), cert. denied, No. S16C0502, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 286 (Ga. 2016).

CHAPTER 30 INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Sec. 50-30-1 through 50-30-6 [Repealed].

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, the Code sections in this chapter, originally designated as Code Sections 50-29-1 through 50-29-6 by

Ga. L. 1995, p. 870, were redesignated as Code Sections 50-30-1 through 50-30-6, since Chapter 29 had already been enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 761.

50-30-1 through 50-30-6. Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2008, p. 1015, § 11/SB 344, effective May 14, 2008. Code Commission notes. - The amendment of Code Section 50-30-4, by Ga. L. 2008, p. 181, § 24, irreconcilably conflicted with and was treated as superseded by Ga. L. 2008, p. 1015, § 11. See County of Butts v. Strahan, 151 Ga. 417 (1921).

Editor’s notes. - This chapter was based on Code 1981, §§ 50-30-1 to 50-30-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 870, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 128, § 50.

CHAPTER 31 GEORGIA SUGGESTION SYSTEM 50-31-1 through 50-31-7. Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2001, p. 873, § 27, effective July 1, 2001. Editor’s notes. - This chapter, consisting of Code Sections 50-31-1 through 50-31-7, concerning the Georgia Suggestion System, was repealed prior to becom-

ing effective and was based on Ga. L. 1996, p. 1647, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 533, § 1.

CHAPTER 32 GEORGIA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Article 1 General Provisions Sec.

Short title. Definitions. Creation of authority and board; quorum; vacancies. Membership; terms; appointment; expenses; removal; applicability of Chapter 10 of Title 45; meetings; voting; assignment. Development of the Atlanta region’s Concept 3 transit proposal; use of federal and state planning funds; assessment of economic benefit and environmental impact [Repealed]. Article 2 Jurisdiction

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2018 · leading case: The Best Jewelry Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Fulton Cnty., Georgia, 780 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Best Jewelry Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Fulton Cnty., Georgia, 780 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “(ii) Plaintiffs also argue that Fulton County State Court’s failure to obtain approval from and submit progress reports to the Georgia Technology Authority amounts to a violation of OCGA § 50-29-12. We disagree. OCGA § 50-29-12 provides in relevant part: (a) The General Assembly…”

Prince v. Rawls., 816 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “7 See generally OCGA § 50-29-12 (a) ("The General Assembly desires to promote economic development and efficient delivery of government services by encouraging state governmental agencies and private sector entities to conduct their business and transactions using electronic…”

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.