GA Code § 1-1-2 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 1 - General Provisions|Chapter 1 - General Provisions|§ 1-1-2. Legislative Intent

 The enactment of this Code is intended as a recodification, revision, modernization, and reenactment of the general laws of the State of Georgia which are currently of force and is intended, where possible, to resolve conflicts which exist in the law and to repeal those laws which are obsolete as a result of the passage of time or other causes, which have been declared unconstitutional or invalid, or which have been superseded by the enactment of later laws. Except as otherwise specifically provided by particular provisions of this Code, the enactment of this Code by the General Assembly is not intended to alter the substantive law in existence on the effective date of this Code.   Cross references.   - Effective date of Code, § 1-1-9.   Law reviews.   - For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Official Code publication controls over unofficial compilation.   - Attorneys who cite unofficial publication of 1981 Code do so at their peril; in any situation wherein defendant's compilation differs in any way from statutory provisions of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated as published by Michie (now Lexis-Nexis/srs), it is the Michie publication which is controlling. Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).   Alteration of substantive law not intended.   - The primary purpose of the new codification was to rearrange the statutes as previously enacted by the General Assembly into a meaningful and cohesive order, a conclusion supported by language in this section that the Code "is not intended to alter the substantive laws in existence on the effective date of this Code." Georgia ex rel. Gen. Ass'y v. Harrison Co., 548 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Ga. 1982), orders vacated, 559 F. Supp. 37 (N.D. Ga. 1983).    Sodomy statute not changed. - By the enactment of the Official Code of Georgia, the General Assembly did not intend to change the sodomy statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2) to exclude as a crime the placing of one's mouth on the sexual organ of another. Porter v. State, 168 Ga. App. 703, 309 S.E.2d 919 (1983).   Eminent domain notice statute not changed.    - Placement of O.C.G.A. §§ 22-1-8 and22-2-20 in different Code chapters did not, under the plain meaning of the sections and the operation of this section, extend coverage of O.C.G.A. § 22-2-20 (notice of condemnation in eminent domain provisions) to other than private property. DOT v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124, 337 S.E.2d 327 (1985).   Shoplifting statute unchanged.    - It was the intention of the legislature that the provisions now codified as paragraphs (1) and (2) of O.C.G.A. § 51-7-60, governing detention of persons suspected of shoplifting, be read in the conjunctive, notwithstanding the use of the disjunctive in the present Code section because the Code revision committee's substitution of the word "or" for "or provided" between the paragraphs tends to give the statute a potentially irrational effect. K Mart Corp. v. Adamson, 192 Ga. App. 884, 386 S.E.2d 680 (1989).    Cited in Jarmon v. Murphy, 164 Ga. App. 763, 298 S.E.2d 510 (1982); Ketchum v. State, 167 Ga. App. 858, 307 S.E.2d 742 (1983); Axson v. State, 174 Ga. App. 236, 329 S.E.2d 566 (1985); Whaley v. State, 260 Ga. 384, 393 S.E.2d 681 (1990); Kumar v. Hall, 262 Ga. 639, 423 S.E.2d 653 (1992); Brophy v. McCranie, 264 Ga. 187, 442 S.E.2d 230 (1994); Charter Medical Info. Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 266 Ga. 720, 470 S.E.2d 655 (1996); Sheriff v. State, 277 Ga. 182, 587 S.E.2d 27 (2003); Hardin v. NBC Universal, Inc., 283 Ga. 477, 660 S.E.2d 374 (2008).