Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 15-21-130 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 15-21-130 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 15-21-130

TITLE 15 COURTS

Section 21. Payment and Disposition of Fines and Forfeitures, 15-21-1 through 15-21-209.

ARTICLE 8 FUNDING FOR LOCAL VICTIM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

15-21-130. Legislative intent.

It is the intent of this article to provide funding for local victim assistance programs.

(Code 1981, §15-21-130, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 260, § 3.)

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 15-21-130

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Young v. State, 860 S.E.2d 746 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2021 | 312 Ga. 71

...o would testify at trial, because Young made no “specific showing of need.” Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 785-786 (12) (514 SE2d 205) (1999). 5. Young argues that the State’s use of funds from a victim assistance account, see OCGA § 15-21-130 et seq., to reimburse four witnesses for their lost wages without disclosing this fact to him at trial constituted unconstitutional evidence suppression because evidence of the use of the funds would have served as impeachment 10 evidence....

YOUNG v. THE STATE 6-24-2021 Substitute Opinion Issued. (Ga. 2021).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 24, 2021 | 312 Ga. 71

...o would testify at trial, because Young made no “specific showing of need.” Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 785-786 (12) (514 SE2d 205) (1999). 5. Young argues that the State’s use of funds from a victim assistance account, see OCGA § 15-21-130 et seq., to reimburse four witnesses for their lost wages without disclosing this fact to him at 10 trial constituted unconstitutional evidence suppression because evidence of the use of the funds would have served as impeachment evidence....

Young v. State (Ga. 2021).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 1, 2021 | 312 Ga. 71

...o would testify at trial, because Young made no “specific showing of need.” Cromartie v. State, 270 Ga. 780, 785-786 (12) (514 SE2d 205) (1999). 5. Young argues that the State’s use of funds from a victim assistance account, see OCGA § 15-21-130 et seq., to reimburse four witnesses for their lost wages without disclosing this fact to him at 10 trial constituted unconstitutional evidence suppression because evidence of the use of the funds would have served as impeachment evidence....