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result of the passage of time or other causes, which have been declared unconstitutional or invalid, or which have been superseded by the enactment of later laws.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: 2024-06-25
Snippet: (ii) Judge Peterson Violated CJC Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), 1.2 (B), and 2.2 The Hearing
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06
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
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
Snippet: penalty for a single violation of any one of Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is (noting that violation
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-09-06
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
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
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
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
Snippet: provisions of the Code at issue in this matter — Rules 1.1, 1.2 (A), and 4.2 (B). Rather, judicial candidates
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-10-25
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
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
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
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
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
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
Snippet: admits that in this matter, he violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 of the GRPC.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-03-01
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: 2019-08-05
Citation: 831 S.E.2d 734
Snippet: special master found that Sakas had violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 1.16 (d),
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-10-22
Citation: 820 S.E.2d 729, 304 Ga. 628
Snippet: (Review Panel reprimand for violations of Rules 1.1, 1.2 (c), 1.3, and 1.4 based on defaulting attorney's
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-03-05
Citation: 811 S.E.2d 343
Snippet: probable cause to believe that Moore violated Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16, 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.2