O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-10-1 (2019)

Creation of magistrate courts

✓ 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

There shall be one magistrate court in each county of the state which shall be known as the Magistrate Court of County.

History

Code 1981, § 15-10-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 884, § 2-1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Montgomery v. Montgomery, 287 Ga. App. 77, 650 S.E.2d 754 (2007). OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Magistrate could not hold office while seeking election to city council. - 1983 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U83-55, which stated that there was no statutory, constitutional, nor common-law prohibition against a person simultaneously holding the offices of magistrate and city councilman, was issued prior to the ratification of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. II, Sec. II, Para. V, which provides that the test for simulta-

neously holding two offices is specific authorization, rather than prohibition; since there is no law specifically authorizing a person to simultaneously hold the offices of magistrate and city councilman, a chief magistrate could not hold office as chief magistrate while seeking election to the city council. 1985 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U85-41.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1985–2002 · leading case: Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Grp., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eckles v. Atlanta Tech. Grp., Inc., 485 S.E.2d 22 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 4× “2d 502 (1994); OCGA § 15-10-1 (1994). [2] See State Bd. of Dental Examiners v.”

First Liberty Bank v. LaGrone (In Re LaGrone), 230 B.R. 900 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “Conversion is a tort for which punitive damages may be recovered, O.C.G.A. §§ 15-10-1, 15-10-6, 15-12-5.1; see also Privitera v.”

Smith v. Greene, 559 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 2× “The plain language of Article 4, and OCGA § 15-10-61 in particular, addresses itself to magistrate courts.”

Doss v. Long, 629 F. Supp. 127 (N.D. Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “Because the continued existence and enforceability of judgments previously rendered in the fee-system courts constituted a continuing harm to the plaintiff class, the Court denied the motion to dismiss on August 4, 1982.”

Jackson v. State, 414 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Const, of 1983; OCGA § 15-10-1 et seq. There is no contention that the potential juror, acting in his official capacity as a magistrate, had received any affidavit, had issued any warrant, or had otherwise had any prior official involvement in appellant’s case.”

Howe v. Roberts, 381 S.E.2d 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Recognizing that because some procedure, other than the limited matters set forth in OCGA § 15-10-1 et seq., must be used to guide magistrate court proceedings, the majority has also decided that the “general rights” in common law practice pre-existing the CPA are now to be…”

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.