Cobb County v. Crusselle

548 S.E.2d 306, 274 Ga. 78, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1807, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 419
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 4, 2001
DocketS01A0474, S01A0476
StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.E.2d 306 (Cobb County v. Crusselle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cobb County v. Crusselle, 548 S.E.2d 306, 274 Ga. 78, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1807, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 419 (Ga. 2001).

Opinion

Hunstein, Justice.

The trial court held that a portion of Cobb County Development Standard 409.01.02 unconstitutionally conflicted with the practice of land surveying as defined in OCGA § 43-15-2 (6) (D). Cobb County Development Standard 409.01.02 requires that the design of storm drainage systems within county boundaries be designed and approved by a registered civil engineer. Our review of OCGA § 43-15-2 (6) reveals that it is a definitional statute which sets forth in subsections (A) through (G) certain activities which a professional land surveyor may perform. Id. at (7). OCGA § 43-15-2 (6) does not purport to reserve these designated activities for performance exclusively by land surveyors and nothing in the statute prohibits the performance of these activities by other qualified professionals who are lawfully authorized to undertake them.

“A special law does not conflict with a general law if it ‘does not detract from or hinder the operation of the (general) law, but rather . . . augments and strengthens it.’ [Cit.]” Grovenstein v. Effingham County, 262 Ga. 45, 47 (1) (414 SE2d 207) (1992). It is uncontro-verted that registered civil engineers are lawfully authorized to design and approve storm drainage systems. See OCGA § 43-15-2 (10), (11). The requirement in Cobb County Development Standard 409.01.02 that sewer systems be designed and approved by a registered civil engineer thus does not detract from or hinder the operation of OCGA § 43-15-2 (6) (D). See generally Grovenstein, supra. Because the development standard does not conflict with the statute, we reverse that part of the trial court’s ruling finding the standard to be unconstitutional and affirm that portion upholding its validity.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grovenstein v. Effingham County
414 S.E.2d 207 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
548 S.E.2d 306, 274 Ga. 78, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1807, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-county-v-crusselle-ga-2001.