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

O.C.G.A. § 15-10-200 (2019)

Applicability; penalty

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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 governs trials of misdemeanor violations of Code Section 16-9-20, relating to deposit account fraud, which violations shall be punishable as provided in subsection (b) of Code Section 16-9-20.

History

Code 1981, § 15-10-200, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 1032, § 2; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1787, § 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2002–2002 · leading case: In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, JQC NOS. 01-44, 01-73, 01-89, 01-90, 566 S.E.2d 310 (Ga. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, JQC NOS. 01-44, 01-73, 01-89, 01-90, 566 S.E.2d 310 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-10-200 et seq. By issuing numerous checks without sufficient funds on deposit to honor their payment, Judge Hammill violated the prohibition against such conduct, and also acted contrary to the high standards of behavior required of the judiciary, thereby violating…”
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.