
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Orig. Code 1863, § 1582; Code 1868, § 1645; Code 1873, § 1651; Code 1882, § 1651; Civil Code 1895, § 1802; Civil Code 1910, § 2159; Code 1933, § 79-101.)
- Definition of "person" generally, § 1-3-3.
- For survey article on business associations, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 13 (1982). For article, "Rights: Afterthoughts," see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 473 (1993). For survey article discussing developments in law of business associations for the period from June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 95 (2000).
Section becomes, in substance, a part of the charter of a corporation. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L. Ed. 185 (1878).
Corporation is a creature of the law. Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Thornton, 134 Ga. 405, 67 S.E. 849 (1910).
- The conference of power upon persons to organize a corporation is legislative in character and must be done by direct legislation, or be founded upon legislative or constitutional provisions. Free Gift Soc'y No. 25 Bros. & Sisters of Benevolence v. Edwards, 163 Ga. 857, 137 S.E. 382 (1927).
- The State Board of Workmen's Compensation (now State Board of Workers' Compensation) is not a natural person, partnership or corporation, but an agency of the state. The state has not consented for this agency to be sued and a suit cannot be maintained against the state without its consent. Cardin v. Riegel Textile Corp., 219 Ga. 695, 135 S.E.2d 284 (1964).
Averment in indictment that representations were made to corporation is sufficient, for this is a representation to a person, although an artificial one. Turnipseed v. State, 53 Ga. App. 194, 185 S.E. 403 (1936).
In 1863 Code, state for first time asserted its right to change, modify, or alter. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11, 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).
Power to change, modify, destroy is referred to as reserved power of state. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11, 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).
- The sovereign power to alter, modify, or repeal charters is vested in the state itself, and has never been committed to the superior court. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11, 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).
Corporation of this state cannot be dissolved by act of Congress. Holland v. Heyman & Bro., 60 Ga. 174 (1878).
- Where the reserved power existed at the time of their creation, the General Assembly may authorize preexisting corporations to merge or consolidate upon the affirmative vote of less than all of the stockholders. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11, 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).
Section is broader than former Code 1910, § 2239, which pertains to withdrawal of franchise. Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. State, 54 Ga. 401 (1875), rev'd on other grounds, 92 U.S. 665, 23 L. Ed. 757 (1876).
State has right to withdraw any privilege which is part of corporation's franchise. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L. Ed. 185 (1878).
Right to withdraw franchise must authorize a withdrawal of every or any right or privilege which is a part of the franchise, especially in view of this statutory provision that private corporations are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator. Barnett v. D.O. Martin Co., 191 Ga. 11, 11 S.E.2d 210 (1940).
- There is a substantial difference between a corporation's attempting to reserve right to impair vested rights of its shareholders through altering or amending its internal structure and retention by state of power to modify or withdraw charters granted to corporations created by the state. Baugh v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 248 Ga. 180, 281 S.E.2d 531 (1981).
Under this section, railroad corporation may be confined to particular route on certain prescribed conditions, as to a portion of a line through a given county. Macon & B.R.R. v. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1, 11 S.E. 442, 21 Am. St. R. 135 (1890).
Cited in Georgia Power Co. v. City of Decatur, 181 Ga. 187, 182 S.E. 32 (1935).
- 18 Am. Jur. 2d, Corporations, §§ 63, 65, 66.
- 18 C.J.S., Corporations, § 8.
- Diversity of citizenship, for purposes of federal jurisdiction, in stockholders' derivative action, 68 A.L.R.2d 824.
Right of member, officer, agent, or director of private corporation or unincorporated association to assert personal privilege against self-incrimination with respect to production of corporate books or records, 52 A.L.R.3d 636; 87 A.L.R. Fed. 177.
Availability of sole shareholder's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist production of corporation's books and records--modern status, 87 A.L.R. Fed. 177.
Punitive damages in actions for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USCA § 1981a; 42 USCA § 2000e et seq.), 150 A.L.R. Fed. 601.
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-11-04
Snippet: multiple clients, thereby violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(a) and (c), 3.2, and 8.4(a)(4));
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-09-16
Snippet: similar case where the attorney violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 by failing to file an action on behalf
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-08-12
Snippet: attorney—who was in default—for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.15(I), 8.4(a)(4), and 9.3 by failing
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-05-28
Citation: 321 Ga. 675
Snippet: imposing six-month suspension for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.16 in four separate matters, where
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-05-28
Citation: 321 Ga. 651
Snippet: with or without a license. See OCGA § 16-11-125.1 (2.1) (any person who is licensed
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-05-06
Citation: 915 S.E.2d 634, 321 Ga. 530
Snippet: who abandoned a single client; violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 (a), 1.5 (a), 3.2, and 9.3; aggravating
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-10-01
Citation: 319 Ga. 881
Snippet: 5 single violation of Rules 1.2, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II) (a), 1.15 (II) (b), 1.15 (III)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-08-13
Citation: 905 S.E.2d 645, 319 Ga. 730
Snippet: based on attorney’s admitted violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 where there were a number of mitigating
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-05-29
Citation: 902 S.E.2d 580, 319 Ga. 176
Snippet: public reprimand for attorney’s violations of Rules 1.2, 1.4, 1.15 (I), and 1.15 (II)); In the Matter of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-03-05
Citation: 899 S.E.2d 126, 318 Ga. 600
Snippet: two-year suspension for her violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.4 (a), 8.1 (a), 8.4 (a) (4)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06
Citation: 318 Ga. 260
Snippet: which he is charged with violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I) and (II), 1.16, 3.2, 3.5
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17
Citation: 318 Ga. 155
Snippet: attorney found in default for violating Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17
Citation: 897 S.E.2d 415, 318 Ga. 150
Snippet: public reprimand for lawyer who violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4; significant mitigating factors and
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-11-07
Citation: 895 S.E.2d 308, 317 Ga. 669
Snippet: Board reprimand for Paxton’s violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 (b) in failing to work diligently for
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-24
Citation: 317 Ga. 528
Snippet: such term is defined in Code Section 1-2-1, exists, the probable gestational age
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Citation: 317 Ga. 515
Snippet: for a single violation of any one of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is not). However, the Bar
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-08-16
Citation: 892 S.E.2d 27, 316 Ga. 879
Snippet: maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.15 (I) is disbarment. Matteson I
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-08-16
Citation: 892 S.E.2d 21, 316 Ga. 885
Snippet: 1 The maximum penalty for violations of Rules 1.2, 1.3, and 5.5 is disbarment; the maximum penalty for
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-07-13
Citation: 890 S.E.2d 770, 316 Ga. 845
Snippet: maximum penalty for a single violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.15 (I), and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-06-29
Citation: 316 Ga. 718
Snippet: Griffin v. AAA Auto Club South, Inc., 221 Ga. App. 1, 2 (1) (470 SE2d 474) (1996). But this means only that