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

O.C.G.A. § 52-2-4 (2019)

Creation of authority; status of authority as an instrumentality of state and a public corporation

✓ 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

There is created a body corporate and politic, to be known as the Georgia Ports Authority, which shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the State of Georgia and a public corporation; and by that name, style, and title the authority may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, and complain and defend in all courts.

History

Ga. L. 1945, p. 464, § 2; Ga. L. 1949, p. 778, § 1; Ga. L. 1955, p. 120, § 1; Ga. L. 1966, p. 457, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Waiver of immunity. - This state has waived immunity under U.S. Const., amend. 11 in establishing the Georgia Ports Authority. Hodges v. Tomberlin, 510 F. Supp. 1280 (S.D. Ga. 1980). O.C.G.A. § 52-2-4 is not a venue provision authorizing suit against the Georgia Ports Authority in all courts of the state; it is merely a waiver of governmental immunity by which the Ports Authority consents to the filing of a suit in the proper forum. Marine Port Terms. v. Georgia Ports Auth., 180 Ga. App. 380, 348 S.E.2d 896 (1986). The ‘‘sue and be sued’’ language in O.C.G.A. § 52-2-4 is insufficient to waive governmental immunity, and there is nothing in the law covering the Georgia

Ports Authority that could be construed as providing that immunity is waived. Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 217 Ga. App. 876, 460 S.E.2d 100 (1995), aff ’d, 266 Ga. 586, 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996). Torts Claims Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-21-20 et seq., applies to the Georgia Ports Authority as sovereign immunity applies thereto. Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 217 Ga. App. 876, 460 S.E.2d 100 (1995), aff ’d, 266 Ga. 586, 470 S.E.2d 426 (1996). Punitive damages award void. - Award of punitive damages against the Georgia Ports Authority was against Georgia public policy and was impermissible as a matter of law and void. Georgia Ports Auth. v. Hutchinson, 209 Ga. App. 726, 434 S.E.2d 791 (1993).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Exemption from requirements of Coastal Marshlands Protection Act.

- Because the Georgia Ports Authority created by O.C.G.A. § 52-2-4 was, at time

WATERS OF STATE, PORTS & WATERCRAFT

of enactment of O.C.G.A. Pt. 4, Art. 4, Ch. 5, T. 12 (Coastal Marshlands Protection Act), empowered and charged with responsibility of development and improvement of rivers and seaports of this state, as a general matter, it is exempt from requirements of that part. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-85. While the Georgia Ports Authority is generally exempt from provisions of

O.C.G.A. Pt. 4, Art. 4, Ch. 5, T. 12, the Authority must obtain prior written approval of the Coastal Marshlands Protection Committee for any proposed alteration of marshlands adjacent to Colonels Island which were conveyed to the Georgia Ports Authority pursuant to Ga. L. 1973, p. 747. 1981 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 81-85.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 460 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. Georgia Ports Auth., 460 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “464 et seq. By its very name, it was an "authority" of the State.”
Georgia Ports Auth. v. Andre Rickmers Schiffsbeteiligungsges mbH & Co. KG, 585 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Has the State of Georgia waived immunity under the Eleventh Amendment in establishing the GPA? The trial court ruled that the statute establishing the GPA, OCGA § 52-2-4, constituted a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.”
Ga. Ports Auth. v. Lawyer, 821 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 52-2-4. The General Assembly has declared "that the creation of the **679 [Ports Authority] and the carrying out of its corporate purpose is in all respects for the benefit of the people of this state and is a public purpose and that the [Ports Authority] will be…”
Georgia Ports Auth. v. Hutchinson, 434 S.E.2d 791 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “A punitive damage award against a governmental entity or arm of the State violates public policy because it burdens the very citizens for whose benefit the wrongdoer is being chastised. Such damages are assessed over and above the amount necessary to compensate the injured…”
Hines v. Georgia Ports Auth., 604 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “33 OCGA §52-2-4. 34 See McLucas v. State Bridge Building Auth.”
Marine Port Terminals v. Georgia Ports Auth., 348 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “” *381 To the contrary, appellant Marine Port Terminals contends that OCGA § 52-2-4 controls, in providing the Georgia Ports Authority “may .”
Hoffman Elec. Co. v. Chiyoda Int'l Corp., 417 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The appellants, consisting of Hoffman Electric Company and 21 other suppliers of labor or material, filed claims of lien against property owned by the Georgia Ports Authority (established by OCGA § 52-2-4 as “an instrumentality of the State of Georgia and a public corporation”)…”
Georgia Ports Auth. v. Lawyer, 304 Ga. 667 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 52-2-4. The General Assembly has declared “that the creation of the [Ports Authority] and the carrying out of its corporate purpose is in all respects for the benefit of the people of this state and is a public purpose and that the [Ports Authority] will be performing an…”
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.