Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The 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result of the passage of time or other causes, which have been declared unconstitutional or invalid, or which have been superseded by the enactment of later laws.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.
- Effective date of Code, § 1-1-9.
- For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982).
- 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�), 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2025-11-04
Snippet: abandoned 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: 2025-02-18
Citation: 912 S.E.2d 696, 321 Ga. 67
Snippet: panel reprimand and alleging violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, and 1.4, and where attorney, who had
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-06-25
Citation: 903 S.E.2d 645, 319 Ga. 316
Snippet: (ii) Judge Peterson Violated CJC Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), 1.2 (B), and 2.2 The Hearing Panel
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06
Citation: 318 Ga. 260
Snippet: for 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
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-01-17
Citation: 318 Ga. 155
Snippet: attorney found in default for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-10-11
Citation: 317 Ga. 515
Snippet: penalty for a single violation of any one of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is not). However, the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-09-06
Citation: 892 S.E.2d 761, 317 Ga. 255
Snippet: Tuggle was alleged to have violated Rules 1.1,1 1.2 (a),2 1.3,3 1.4,4 1.16 (d),5 8.4 (a) (4),6 and 9
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
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-08-16
Citation: 892 S.E.2d 1, 316 Ga. 876
Snippet: Johnson be removed from office for violating Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 1.2 (B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-07-13
Citation: 890 S.E.2d 770, 316 Ga. 845
Snippet: disbarred for his admitted violations of Rules 1.1; 1.2 (a); 1.3; 1.4; 1.5 (a) and (c); 1.15 (I) (a),
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-03-15
Citation: 885 S.E.2d 738, 315 Ga. 841
Snippet: provisions of the Code at issue in this matter — Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 4.2 (B). Rather, judicial candidates are
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-10-25
Citation: 315 Ga. 39
Snippet: acts of the General Assembly. See OCGA §§ 1-1-1; 1-1-2; 28-9-5. Early codification practices were very
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-09-30
Citation: 314 Ga. 699
Snippet: see OCGA §§ 21-2-132 (h) (1)-(2); 21-2-153 (a.1) (1)-(2); 21-2-182; 21-2-183 (b) (3); 21-2-211; 21-2-221
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-09-07
Citation: 878 S.E.2d 196, 314 Ga. 576
Snippet: the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.15 (I) is disbarment. Matteson
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-08-09
Citation: 314 Ga. 510
Snippet: alleged that Roberts’s conduct violated Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-22
Citation: 875 S.E.2d 754, 314 Ga. 78
Snippet: maximum punishment for a single violation of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment and the maximum
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-22
Citation: 875 S.E.2d 627, 314 Ga. 10
Snippet: suspension and public reprimand for judge’s Rule 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 2.8 (B) violations; intemperate conduct
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-05-03
Citation: 872 S.E.2d 693, 313 Ga. 695
Snippet: admits that in this matter, he violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 of the GRPC. Although
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-03-01
Citation: 855 S.E.2d 651, 311 Ga. 65
Snippet: that by this conduct Plumides violated Rules 1.1, 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.15 (I)-(III), 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2020-11-12
Citation: 310 Ga. 403
Snippet: convincing evidence that Crawford violated CJC Rule 1.1; (2) whether the JQC was validly constituted at all