O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-780 (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 article shall be known and may be cited as the “Georgia Lemon Law.”

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-780, enacted by Ga. L. 2008, p. 746, § 1/HB 470; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 8/SB 148.

Annotations

Law reviews. For annual survey on administrative law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 15 (2017).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Validity, construction and effect of state

motor vehicle warranty legislation, 88 A.L.R.5th 301.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Taylor Auto Grp., Inc. v. Jessie, 527 S.E.2d 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Taylor Auto Grp., Inc. v. Jessie, 527 S.E.2d 256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq. The $3 fee is mandated by OCGA § 10-1-789, and Taylor has presented evidence to the effect that the document preparation fee is a mechanism through which it allocates to each car purchaser various administrative expenses it incurs in doing tag and title…”
Cory Bender v. Southtowne Motors of Newnan II, Inc., 793 S.E.2d 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “This case involves issues of first impression concerning the application of the Georgia Lemon Law, OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq., which is designed to protect certain purchasers of “nonconforming” 1 motor vehicles, sometimes referred to as “lemons” or “lemon vehicles.”
Kondo v. Marietta Toyota, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “And the Georgia Motor Vehicle Warranty Rights Act (OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq.) considers a “new motor vehicle” as one “that was leased or purchased in this state or registered by the original consumer in this state and on which the original motor vehicle title was issued to the…”
Rodgers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 627 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Rodgers appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to General Motors, contending he did not waive his right to pursue breach of warranty claims in court by *548 utilizing the alternative dispute resolution procedures found in the Motor Vehicle Warranty Rights…”
Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. James W. Simpson (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “This dispute arises out of the purchase of a motor home and the application of OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq., Georgia’s Lemon Law, in connection with said purchase.”
Dennis Henry v. Griffin Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff Dennis Henry appeals from the grant of summary judgment to defendant Griffin Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Griffin Chrysler”) in this action brought under Georgia’s Lemon Law, OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq., and Fair Business Practices Act (“FBPA”), OCGA § 10-1-390 et seq.”
Kl Prods., LLC v. Mercedes-benz U.s.a., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “1 OCGA § 10-1-780 et seq. By its terms, the Lemon Law is intended “to create a procedure for expeditious resolution of complaints and disputes concerning [defectively manufactured] new motor vehicles[.”
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.