Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § 2; Ga. L. 1968, p. 1088, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1976, p. 721, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1455, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 10.)
- Finished goods defined for purposes of Level 2 Freeport Exemption, § 48-5-48.6.
- Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § 1 et seq. does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle in view of paragraph (a)(2) of Ga. L. 1967, p. 659, § 2. Holder v. Brock, 129 Ga. App. 732, 200 S.E.2d 912 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. App. 818, 237 S.E.2d 223 (1977).
- A mobile home falls within the definition of a "motor vehicle". Holder v. Brock, 129 Ga. App. 732, 200 S.E.2d 912 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc., 142 Ga. App. 818, 237 S.E.2d 223 (1977).
- O.C.G.A. Art. 1, Ch. 1, T. 10 is not applicable to farm equipment such as a tobacco combine. Rigdon v. Walker Sales & Serv., Inc., 161 Ga. App. 459, 288 S.E.2d 711 (1982).
- Charges of 11/2 percent on the unpaid balance on a commercial account were not authorized by the Retail Installment and Home Solicitation Sales Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-1 et seq., even though the agreement involved was in the form set forth in the Retail Installment and Home Solicitation Sales Act because that statute applies only to purchases for personal, family, or household use. Gold Kist, Inc. v. McNair, 166 Ga. App. 66, 303 S.E.2d 290 (1983).
Obligation arising out of farm supplies supplied to a farmer in the farmer's business is clearly a commercial account and is not a retail installment transaction. McNair v. Gold Kist, Inc., 166 Ga. App. 782, 305 S.E.2d 478 (1983).
Cited in Martin v. Glenn's Furn. Co., 126 Ga. App. 692, 191 S.E.2d 567 (1972); Welmaker v. W.T. Grant Co., 365 F. Supp. 531 (N.D. Ga. 1972); Brown v. Jenkins, 135 Ga. App. 694, 218 S.E.2d 690 (1975); Farmers Mut. Exch. of Wrens, Inc. v. Rabun, 145 Ga. App. 798, 245 S.E.2d 52 (1978); Vikowsky v. Savannah Appliance Serv. Corp., 179 Ga. App. 135, 345 S.E.2d 621 (1986).
- 67 Am. Jur. 2d, Sales, § 5 et seq.
- Constitutionality, construction, and application of statute respecting sale, assignment, or transfer of retail installment contracts, 10 A.L.R.2d 447.
Total Results: 20
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-10-22
Citation: 820 S.E.2d 640, 304 Ga. 686
Snippet: impact testimony in death penalty trials, OCGA § 17-10-1.2, was unconstitutional on its face. See Lance, 275
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-04-17
Citation: 301 Ga. 241, 799 S.E.2d 206
Snippet: capital murder prosecution, pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-1.2, and only after the trial court has made a prior
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-11-02
Citation: 298 Ga. 259, 779 S.E.2d 342, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 914
Snippet: Describe the nature of the offense [.] OCGA § 17-10-1.2 (b) (1). Nevertheless, we caution the trial courts
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-05-16
Citation: 710 S.E.2d 773, 289 Ga. 265, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1734, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 388
Snippet: (c) (444 SE2d 748) (1994) (noting as to OCGA § 17-10-1.2 that “our legislature has employed sufficient safeguards
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-03-18
Citation: 708 S.E.2d 362, 288 Ga. 876, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 794, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 251
Snippet: Subsequent to Payne this Court found OCGA § 17-10-1.2 to be constitutional in light of the statutory
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-11-08
Citation: 703 S.E.2d 617, 288 Ga. 341, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3604, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 842
Snippet: impact only in connection with sentencing. OCGA § 17-10-1.2. We have recognized, however, that in death penalty
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-11-01
Citation: 701 S.E.2d 189, 288 Ga. 98, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3491, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 814
Snippet: victim [or] the victim's family. . . ." OCGA § 17-10-1.2(b)(5), (6).[9] 7. Finally, Foster claims that his
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-06-07
Citation: 695 S.E.2d 604, 287 Ga. 279, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 1853, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 423
Snippet: of certain victim impact evidence, see OCGA § 17-10-1.2, Sosniak omitted entirely both argument and any
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-03-01
Citation: 691 S.E.2d 854, 286 Ga. 839, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 551, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 186
Snippet: community, was not unduly inflammatory. See OCGA § 17-10-1.2 (authorizing victim impact testimony); Turner v
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-05-19
Citation: 661 S.E.2d 535, 283 Ga. 517, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1697, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 431
Snippet: ]"). Likewise, *536 OCGA §§ 50-6-6(b)[1] and 45-10-1,[2] other statutes cited by James, do not impose a
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-02-11
Citation: 657 S.E.2d 239, 283 Ga. 134, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 412, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 134
Snippet: paragraph (10) of subsection (a) of Code Section 10-1-2. [3] OCGA § 13-1-11 states: (a) Obligations to
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2007-10-09
Citation: 653 S.E.2d 439, 282 Ga. 774, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 3070, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 729
Snippet: the victim's family, or the community." OCGA § 17-10-1.2. Although a trial court's discretion in controlling
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-11-06
Citation: 637 S.E.2d 639, 281 Ga. 429, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 3381, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 927
Snippet: victim impact evidence during sentencing, OCGA § 17-10-1.2. As Thomason concedes, however, this Court has
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-11-07
Citation: 621 S.E.2d 742, 280 Ga. 100, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 3358, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 770
Snippet: subjected to cross-examination. See OCGA § 17-10-1.2. OCGA § 17-10-1.2(a)(1) permits "evidence from the family
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-11-08
Citation: 604 S.E.2d 826, 278 Ga. 617, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3575, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 994
Snippet: (514 SE2d 1) (1999); OCGA § 24-3-50. OCGA§ 17-10-1.2 (a) (1). Compare Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640, 643
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-02-25
Citation: 560 S.E.2d 663, 275 Ga. 11, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 595, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 92
Snippet: Charges, Part 4(B), pp. 84-86 (1999). 27. OCGA § 17-10-1.2, which authorizes the presentation of certain victim
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-11-19
Citation: 555 S.E.2d 440, 274 Ga. 640, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 3495, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 906
Snippet: Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [6] OCGA § 17-10-1.2(a)(1) (emphasis supplied). [7] See Turner v. State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-10-01
Citation: 553 S.E.2d 569, 274 Ga. 444, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2962, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 763
Snippet: victim-impact evidence was not improper. See OCGA § 17-10-1.2(b); Pickren v. State, 269 Ga. 453(1), 500 S.E.2d
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-07-05
Citation: 532 S.E.2d 677, 272 Ga. 704, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2515, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 536
Snippet: “somebody drowning, grasping at straws.” 11. OCGA § 17-10-1.2 is not unconstitutional as written, and the trial
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-03-06
Citation: 528 S.E.2d 217, 272 Ga. 306, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 954, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 219
Snippet: a death penalty trial is governed by OCGA § 17-10-1.2, and, therefore, Carruthers’ reliance upon OCGA