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

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.”

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.”

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.”

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…”

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.”

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.