O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-4-15 (2019)

Inspections of warehouses

✓ 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

In addition to the general powers conferred by Code Section 10-4-5, the Commissioner and his or her duly authorized agents or employees shall have full power and authority to inspect public warehouses operated under this article, to inventory, and to check the agricultural products stored so as to ascertain the conditions of such products and to determine whether or not the business is conducted in such a manner as to protect the interest of persons who are storing or may store such products. The inspectors shall make sworn reports of their findings to the Commissioner, who shall hold and keep such reports in the records of his or her office. Such inspections shall be made as often as deemed necessary by the Commissioner, but not less than twice during any license period and, in addition, as often as requested by the warehouseman.

History

Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 412, § 9; Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 16/HB 24.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013.

Law reviews. For article, “Evidence,” see 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (2011). For article on the 2011 amendment of this Code section, see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2011).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Negligence of inspectors. - Allegations that an inspection of a public warehouseman were negligent and that the reconciliation of inventory reports were inaccurate were insufficient to warrant summary judgment although the warehouse receipt holders submitted the deposition testimony of the inspector and the Assistant Commissioner of the Warehouse Division, in which the

inspector’s breach of duty appeared clear, the other evidence submitted by the defendant supported the defendant’s contention that the receipt holder had not established negligence as a matter of law. Planters & Citizens Bank v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 786 F. Supp. 991, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2540 (S.D. Ga. 1992), aff’d, No. 92-8468, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10340 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 1993).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 78 Am. Jur. 2d, Warehouses, § 5 et seq. C.J.S. 93 C.J.S., Warehousemen and Safe Depositaries, § 1 et seq.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1992–1992 · leading case: Planters & Citizens Bank v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins., 786 F. Supp. 991 (S.D. Ga. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Planters & Citizens Bank v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins., 786 F. Supp. 991 (S.D. Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 10-4-15 (1989). The Act also requires inspectors to make sworn reports of their findings to the Commissioner, who shall hold and keep such reports in the records of his office.”

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.