Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 11-9-101 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 11-9-101 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 11-9-101

TITLE 11 COMMERCIAL CODE

Section 9. Secured Transactions, 11-9-101 through 11-9-809.

ARTICLE 9 SECURED TRANSACTIONS

PART 1 SHORT TITLE, DEFINITIONS, AND GENERAL CONCEPTS

11-9-101. Short title.

This article may be cited as "Uniform Commercial Code - Secured Transactions."

(Code 1981, §11-9-101, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For comment, "Electronic Self-Help Repossession and You: A Computer Software Vendor's Guide to Staying Out of Jail," see 48 Emory L.J. 1477 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rozier, 278 Ga. 52, 597 S.E.2d 367 (2004).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 68A Am. Jur. 2d, Secured Transactions, § 123 et seq.

Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z, 73 POF3d 275.

C.J.S.

- 6A C.J.S., Assignments, §§ 82, 87. 8 C.J.S., Bailments, § 42. 14 C.J.S., Chattel Mortgages, §§ 2, 311 et seq. 35 C.J.S., Factors, § 46 et seq. 53 C.J.S., Liens, § 2 et seq. 72 C.J.S., Pledges, §§ 5, 43 et seq.

U.L.A.

- Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 9-101.

ALR.

- What constitutes Truth in Lending Act violation which "was not intentional and resulted from bona fide error not withstanding maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error" within meaning of § 130(c) of Act (15 USCA § 1640(c)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 193.

Consignment transactions under Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 on secured transactions, 58 A.L.R.6th 289.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 11-9-101 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 4

Tafel v. Lion Antique Cars & Investments, Inc., A/K/A Lion Antique Investments & Consulting Services, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15

Snippet: the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), see OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., and that the trial court erred by not

TAFEL v. LION ANTIQUE CARS & INVESTMENTS, INC.; And Vice Versa

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-06-15

Citation: 297 Ga. 334, 773 S.E.2d 743, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 443

Snippet: governedbythe Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), see OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq., and that the trial court erred by not

Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Rozier

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-06-07

Citation: 597 S.E.2d 367, 278 Ga. 52, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1875, 54 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 31, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 470

Snippet: of the Georgia Uniform Commercial Code (OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq.) governs our analysis.[7] The UCC's statutory

Branan v. Equico Lessors, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1986-05-07

Citation: 342 S.E.2d 671, 255 Ga. 718

Snippet: is found at Chapter 9 of OCGA Title 11. OCGA § 11-9-101 et seq. The provisions concerning default are