Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Code 1933, § 26-3401, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 405, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 672, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-25/HB 233.)
- Ga. L. 1997, p. 672, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall have retroactive application to the fullest extent permitted by the Constitutions of Georgia and the United States.
Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure."
- For article, "A Comprehensive Analysis of Georgia RICO," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 537 (1993). For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 90 (1997). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).
- Expression of legislative purpose in enacting O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 16 is not an element of a civil cause of action under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq. State v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 188 Ga. App. 120, 372 S.E.2d 276 (1988).
O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 16 requires the plaintiff to allege an organized crime nexus. Georgia Gulf Corp. v. Ward, 701 F. Supp. 1556 (N.D. Ga. 1987).
- Plaintiff's failure to separately allege that defendants were engaged in an "enterprise" as well as a pattern of racketeering did not preclude issuance of a preliminary injunction against the defendants. Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 270 Ga. 95, 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998).
- Plaintiff's failure to allege a nexus between organized crime and the economy is of no consequence. Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 270 Ga. 95, 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998).
- Because the General Assembly did not intend to proscribe a bank's attempts to secure payment of a debt through legal means, the trial court did not err in finding that the debtors failed to offer evidence of a pattern of racketeering to support a RICO claim. All Fleet Refinishing, Inc. v. W. Ga. Nat'l Bank, 280 Ga. App. 676, 634 S.E.2d 802 (2006).
- Evidence sufficient to show a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization violation necessarily also demonstrates the "intent to cause harm" that removes the cap to a punitive damage award. Speir v. Krieger, 235 Ga. App. 392, 509 S.E.2d 684 (1998).
- Credit company to which automobile dealer assigned retail installment contract was not a member of the "organized criminal elements" at which the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act is aimed. Doxie v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 603 F. Supp. 624 (S.D. Ga. 1984).
- While the illegal sale of insurance is not in and of itself a basis for a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) action absent further evidence of fraud rising to the level of theft by deception, the repeated sale to unsuspecting consumers of non-existent insurance was the very essence of such fraud and was exactly the type of criminally fraudulent activity masquerading as "business" that RICO was designed to address. Speir v. Krieger, 235 Ga. App. 392, 509 S.E.2d 684 (1998).
- In a civil action under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., given the similarities in the purpose and language of the federal and Georgia RICO statutes, together with the General Assembly's mandate to liberally construe the Act to effectuate its remedial purposes, under O.C.G.A. § 16-14-2(b), the applicable standard of proof in state civil RICO actions was held to be a preponderance of the evidence; thus, the Supreme Court of Georgia overruled Simpson Consulting, Inc. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 227 Ga. App. 648 (490 S.E.2d 184) (1997), and those other cases holding to the contrary, specifically, Blanton v. Bank of America, 256 Ga. App. 103 (2002), In re Copelan, 250 Ga. App. 856 (2001), and Tronitec, Inc. v. Shealy, 249 Ga. App. 442 (2001). Williams Gen. Corp. v. Stone, 279 Ga. 428, 614 S.E.2d 758 (2005).
Cited in Waller v. State, 251 Ga. 124, 303 S.E.2d 437 (1983); Five Star Partners v. Vincent Netherlands Properties, 169 Bankr. 994 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); Security Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 229 Ga. App. 593, 494 S.E.2d 388 (1997); Roberts v. State, 344 Ga. App. 324, 810 S.E.2d 169 (2018); Ga. Lottery Corp. v. Tabletop Media, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 498, 816 S.E.2d 438 (2018).
Total Results: 9
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-06-27
Snippet: sophistication of various criminal elements,” OCGA § 16-14-2 (a), and the kind of sophisticated conspiracies
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-06-15
Citation: 680 S.E.2d 831, 285 Ga. 656, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2024, 58 A.L.R. 6th 809, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 317
Snippet: activity motivated by . . . pecuniary gain.” OCGA § 16-14-2 (b). Because “[t]he interest of an innocent party
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-06-12
Citation: 632 S.E.2d 376, 280 Ga. 631, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1837, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 409
Snippet: order to effectuate its remedial purposes. OCGA § 16-14-2(b). We find the language in the statute and the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-06-16
Citation: 614 S.E.2d 758, 279 Ga. 428, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1850, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 445
Snippet: economic or physical threat or injury," OCGA § 16-14-2(b), see OCGA § 16-14-5, and civil remedies to compensate
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-11-02
Citation: 507 S.E.2d 730, 270 Ga. 95, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3679, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 1042
Snippet: legitimate economy of this state." See OCGA § 16-14-2. We disagree. Phil-Dan's failure to allege a nexus
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-10-26
Citation: 509 S.E.2d 602, 270 Ga. 165
Snippet: relating to financial institutions). [12] OCGA § 16-14-2(b). [13] Jones Group, 218 Ga.App. 149 at 153(3)
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-09-15
Citation: 489 S.E.2d 823, 268 Ga. 346, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3398, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 509
Snippet: compensation to private persons injured thereby." OCGA § 16-14-2(b). OCGA § 16-14-6(c) promotes this legislative
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1986-11-13
Citation: 349 S.E.2d 717, 256 Ga. 415, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 920
Snippet: against the legitimate economy of the state." OCGA § 16-14-2 (a). Consequently, the expressed intent of the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1983-06-01
Citation: 303 S.E.2d 437, 251 Ga. 124
Snippet: finding is supported by the clear language of OCGA § 16-14-2 (b) (Code Ann. § 26-3401), which sets forth the