O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 52-1-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Tidewaters Act.’’

History

Code 1981, § 52-1-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2317, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For note on 1992 enactment of this article, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 354 (1992).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Rouse v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 524 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rouse v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 524 S.E.2d 455 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “28 Accordingly, Rouse has no protectible property interest that would permit him to maintain his structures on public tidewaters, and his claim that enforcing the Act against him constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without just and adequate compensation is…”
Kelso v. Baxter, 665 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Protection of Tidewaters Act, OCGA §§ 52-1-1 to 52-1-20. 4 The parties do not dispute that this portion of the Sapelo River and the surrounding marsh would be considered a navigable tidewater.”
State of Georgia v. Nofree, LLC, No. A24A0970 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2024). · cites it 4× “A24A0670, the State argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because the Shuman grant was void for a number of reasons and did not vest title in NoFree in light of the Protection of Tidewaters Act, OCGA § 52-1-1, et seq.”
State of Georgia v. Nofree, LLC, 909 S.E.2d 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “A24A0970, the State argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because the Shuman grant was void for a number of reasons and did not vest title in NoFree in light of the Protection of Tidewaters Act, OCGA § 52-1-1, et seq.”
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.