O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-9-54 (2019)

Sale of vehicle

✓ 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

No person shall sell any motor vehicle which is intended for highway use if such vehicle is at the time of the sale a responsible motor vehicle required to have a certificate of emission inspection under Code Section 12-9-45, unless there appears on such vehicle an unexpired valid certificate of emission inspection issued pursuant to this article. Any person violating this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of $100.00 for a first offense, $500.00 for a second offense, and $1,000.00 for each subsequent offense. If, as a result of the sale of a responsible motor vehicle subject to any requirement under Code Section 12-9-45, such motor vehicle would not, if immediately registered by the purchaser as provided by law, be registered in a county in which the requirements of Code Section 12-9-45 are applicable, this Code section shall not apply.

History

Code 1981, § 12-9-54, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 918, § 2.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, §§ 123, 126, 132, 135, 139, 155. JUDICIAL DECISIONS No private cause of action. - Trial court erred in denying an auto sales company’s motion for a directed verdict on the buyer’s claim under the Georgia Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-9-54, because the statute does not provide a civil remedy nor contain an express private cause of

action and the appellate court could not allocate the compensatory damages award among the several counts; thus, the jury’s verdict had to be reversed in its entirety and the case remanded for a new trial. Gobran Auto Sales, Inc. v. Bell, 335 Ga. App. 873, 783 S.E.2d 389 (2016).

CONSERVATION & NATURAL RES.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2016–2016 · leading case: Gobran Auto Sales, Inc. v. Bell, 783 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gobran Auto Sales, Inc. v. Bell, 783 S.E.2d 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “Gobran Auto argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict on Bell’s claim under OCGA § 12-9-54 of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act.”

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.