O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-405 (2019)

Civil penalties; individual liability

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person who violates the terms of an injunction issued under Code Section 10-1-397 shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.00 per violation. For purposes of this Code section, the superior court issuing an injunction shall retain jurisdiction and the cause shall be continued and in such cases the Attorney General, acting in the name of the state, may petition for recovery of civil penalties. (b) In the case of a continuing violation under this part, each day shall be regarded as a separate violation. (c) Any intentional violation by a corporation, partnership, or association shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, partners, employees, or agents of the corporation, partnership, or association who knew or should have known of the acts constituting the violation and who directly authorized, supervised, ordered, or did any of the acts constituting in whole or in part the violation; provided, however, that no such individual directors, officers, partners, employees, or agents shall have any individual liability under this subsection

unless the corporation, partnership, or association, as the case may be, which has committed the intentional violation shall fail to pay into the court within 30 days after judgment sufficient moneys or assets to satisfy the judgment. (d) The Attorney General shall have the authority to compromise or settle claims for penalty brought under this Code section.

History

Ga. L. 1975, p. 376, § 15; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1659, § 6; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 2/SB 148; Ga. L. 2024, p. 1052, § 2(18)/SB 448, effective July 1, 2024. Amendments. The 2024 amendment, effective July 1, 2024, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted “however, that” for “however,” in subsection (c).

Annotations

Law reviews. For article discussing liability, under common-law agency principles, of all persons in the chain of command, for a violation of the Fair Business Practices Act, see 10 Ga. L. Rev. 917 (1976). For annual survey on real property, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 251 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Recovery of cumulative penalties, 71 A.L.R.2d 986.

statutory

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: Brown v. Medscope Am. Corp. (M.D. Ga. 2022).
Brown v. Medscope Am. Corp. (M.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 4× “1 DISCUSSION In its original motion to dismiss, AvantGuard argued, among other things, that the plain statutory language of Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 10-1-405(c), only applies to “agents who are individual persons” and not to other artificial…”
Brown v. Medscope Am. Corp. (M.D. Ga. 2022). “§ 10-1-405(c). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that AvantGuard was MedScope’s agent, knew or should have known of MedScope’s alleged violations, and actively participated in or authorized these violations.”
— 10-1-405(c) — 2 cases
Brown v. Medscope Am. Corp. (M.D. Ga. 2022). “1 DISCUSSION In its original motion to dismiss, AvantGuard argued, among other things, that the plain statutory language of Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 10-1-405(c), only applies to “agents who are individual persons” and not to other artificial…”
Brown v. Medscope Am. Corp. (M.D. Ga. 2022). “§ 10-1-405(c). Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that AvantGuard was MedScope’s agent, knew or should have known of MedScope’s alleged violations, and actively participated in or authorized these violations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.