O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-630 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act.”

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-630, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1585, § 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1986–2002 · leading case: Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Stovall Nissan, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Stovall Nissan, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Stovall then filed suit against NMAC, alleging violations of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act (GDDCA), OCGA § 10-1-630 et seq., and the federal Automobile Dealers Day in Court Act (ADDCA), 15 USCS § 1221 et seq.”

Stamps v. Ford Motor Co., 650 F. Supp. 390 (N.D. Ga. 1986). · cites it 2× “FMC’s and Ford’s Motions for Summary Judgment 1) The Controlling Standard Plaintiffs have advanced several theories of liability against Ford and FMC, including the following: (1) a claim under the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act (“ADDCA”), 15 U.”

Coffee v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998). · cites it 2× “§§ 10-1-620 to -668, and in particular the Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act (GDDCA), O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-630 to -631, is the state-law counterpart to the ADDCA.”

Greensboro Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 568 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The latter statute was enacted “to protect automobile dealers from abusive trade practices employed by manufacturers in an extremely concentrated market.”

Larry Ewers & Larry Ewers Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Ford Leasing Dev. Co. & Ford Motor Credit Co., 843 F.2d 1331 (11th Cir. 1988). “The following two remained: a claim for rescission due to fraud and a claim of damages from a violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-630, et seq. After a week of trial and at the close of plaintiffs’ case, Ford moved for a directed…”

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.