O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 52-1-10 (2019)

Issuance of permit; term; revocation

✓ 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 commissioner may, after July 1, 1992, issue a permit for a maximum term of five years for the location, usage, and possession of a structure which existed on February 1, 1992, upon tidewaters of the state; provided, however, that no permit shall be issued for any structure which does not conform to and meet the requirements of rules and regulations promulgated by the board establishing minimum standards of sanitation, safety, and construction. No permit shall be issued for a term ending after June 30, 1997. (b) No permit issued by the commissioner pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section shall be renewable and a permit may be revoked by the commissioner at any time during its term for failure to continue to meet the requirements of the board’s rules.

History

Code 1981, § 52-1-10, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 2317, § 1.

ARTICLE 2 RIGHT OF PASSAGE

Annotations

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

WATERS OF STATE, PORTS & WATERCRAFT

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 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 4× “6 OCGA § 52-1-10 (a). 7 See OCGA § 52-1-6. 8 See OCGA § 52-1-3 (3).”

The State of Georgia v. Nofree, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “As outlined above, the trial court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the ground that “the inconsistency between the boundary language of the [Shuman] grant and the language within the plat presents a question of fact that can only be resolved by a jury.”

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.