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

O.C.G.A. § 11-3-101 (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 may be cited as “Uniform Commercial Code - Negotiable Instruments.”

History

Code 1981, § 11-3-101, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 1306, § 3.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “The Good Faith Purchase

Idea and the Uniform Commercial Code,” see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 605 (1981). For annual survey article on business associations, see 50 Mercer L. Rev. 171 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 5 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Bills and Notes, § 3. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 3101.

ALR. What constitutes unjustifiable impairment of collateral, discharging parties to a negotiable instrument under UCC § 3606(1)(B), 61 A.L.R.5th 525.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: HWA Props., Inc. v. Cmty. & S. Bank, 746 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
HWA Props., Inc. v. Cmty. & S. Bank, 746 S.E.2d 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Specifically, they argue that there was no evidence that CSB was either a “holder” or “nonholder in possession of the instrument” under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. (“Commercial Code”).”
100 Lakeside Trail Trust v. Bank of Am., N.A., 804 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “4 OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. 5 OCGA § 13-4-24.”
Johnson v. Hodge, 477 S.E.2d 385 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. Under the UCC, the note at issue is a demand note.”
Weldon v. Trust Co. Bank of Columbus, N.A., 499 S.E.2d 393 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. The new versions of these Code sections, rewritten in 1996 (Ga.”
Kline v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 538 S.E.2d 93 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “4 As such, it is governed by OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. OCGA § 11-3-418 provides limited *174 remedies for payment made by mistake, which is the situation here as Kline “mistakenly” issued the money order for the wrong amount, and Williams then gave the instrument to Atlanta Gas…”
Robert Pollard, Jr. v. Queensborough Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “The trial court and the parties all cite to our decision in Marret v. Scott.12 In Marret, a lender filed suit against ten guarantors to enforce its promissory notes.”
Hwa Props., Inc. v. Cmty. & S. Bank (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Specifically, they argue that there was no evidence that 6 CSB was either a “holder” or “nonholder in possession of the instrument” under Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code, OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq. (“Commercial Code”).”
First Guar. Bank v. Nw. Georgia Bank, 417 S.E.2d 348 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “), governing the liability of banks as between themselves arising from transactions involving non-negotiable items, as well as commercial paper or negotiable instruments which are governed by Article 3 (OCGA § 11-3-101 et seq.). The central question is whether the collecting…”
Millard, 2005 T.C. Memo. 192 (1970). “Relying on articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by Georgia and related caselaw, petitioner contends that the original check and the underlying funds remained the property of SouthTrust Bank during the year in issue, and, consequently, the receipt of the…”
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.