Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 16-14-6 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 16-14-6 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 16-14-6

TITLE 16 CRIMES AND OFFENSES

Section 14. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 16-14-1 through 16-14-15.

ARTICLE 5 SANCTIONS AGAINST LICENSED PERSONS FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OR MARIJUANA

16-14-6. Civil remedies.

  1. Any superior court may, after making due provisions for the rights of innocent persons, enjoin violations of Code Section 16-14-4 by issuing appropriate orders and judgments, including, but not limited to:
    1. Ordering any defendant to divest himself or herself of any interest in any enterprise, real property, or personal property;
    2. Imposing reasonable restrictions upon the future activities or investments of any defendant, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any defendant from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise in which he or she was engaged in violation of Code Section 16-14-4;
    3. Ordering the dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise;
    4. Ordering the suspension or revocation of any license, permit, or prior approval granted to any enterprise by any agency of the state; or
    5. Ordering the forfeiture of the charter of a corporation organized under the laws of this state or the revocation of a certificate authorizing a foreign corporation to conduct business within this state upon a finding that the board of directors or a managerial agent acting on behalf of the corporation, in conducting affairs of the corporation, has authorized or engaged in conduct in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 and that, for the prevention of future criminal activity, the public interest requires that the charter of the corporation be forfeited and that the corporation be dissolved or the certificate be revoked.
  2. Any aggrieved person or the state may institute a civil action under subsection (a) of this Code section. In such civil action, relief shall be granted in conformity with the principles that govern the granting of injunctive relief from threatened loss or damage in other civil cases, provided that no showing of special or irreparable damage to the person shall have to be made. Upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing of immediate danger of significant loss or damage, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction may be issued in any such action before a final determination on the merits.
  3. Any person who is injured by reason of any violation of Code Section 16-14-4 shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages. Such person shall also recover attorney's fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. The defendant or any injured person may demand a trial by jury in any civil action brought pursuant to this Code section.
  4. Any injured person shall have a right or claim to forfeited property or to the proceeds derived therefrom as set forth in Code Section 9-16-16.
  5. A conviction in any criminal proceeding shall estop the defendant in any subsequent civil action or civil forfeiture proceeding under this chapter as to all matters proved in the criminal proceeding.

(Code 1933, § 26-3406, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 405, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-25/HB 233.)

Editor's notes.

- 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."

Law reviews.

- For article, "The Civil Jurisdiction of State and Magistrate Courts," see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 29 (1987). For article, "A Comprehensive Analysis of Georgia RICO," see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 537 (1993). For article, "Theories of Stockbroker and Brokerage Firm Liability," see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 12 (2004). For article, "Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy?," see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 449 (2011). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- Trial court's dismissal of the claims against the in personam defendant was reversed because since the equitable remedies allowed by O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(a) were available to other aggrieved parties as well as to the state, an action for such remedies was uncharacteristic of a criminal matter. As such, such a claim was not unconstitutional. State v. Singh, 291 Ga. 525, 731 S.E.2d 649 (2012).

Legislative purpose not element of cause of action.

- 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 RICO. State v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 188 Ga. App. 120, 372 S.E.2d 276 (1988); Reaugh v. Inner Harbour Hosp., 214 Ga. App. 259, 447 S.E.2d 617 (1994).

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).

Claim for attorney fees based on bad faith.

- Loan servicer's argument that the borrowers' claim for attorney fees should be dismissed lacked merit because regardless of whether the loan servicer had acted in bad faith, the court could not, at a motion to dismiss stage, rule on whether the loan servicer had been stubbornly litigious or whether it had caused the borrowers unnecessary trouble and expense. Kerfoot v. FNF Servicing, Inc., F. Supp. 2d (M.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2013).

Subsection (c).

- Authorization of recovery of post-trial attorney fees and costs in O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c) does not violate equal protection, due process, or chill the rights of litigants seeking appellate review. Dee v. Sweet, 268 Ga. 346, 489 S.E.2d 823 (1997).

Standing.

- Party indirectly injured by Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., offense lacks standing to bring a RICO claim. Morast v. Lance, 631 F. Supp. 474 (N.D. Ga. 1986), aff'd, 807 F.2d 926 (11th Cir. 1987).

National bank vice president, who was discharged for reporting an irregular transaction to the comptroller of the currency, was not entitled to relief under O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 16, since the vice president was not fired because of a refusal to participate in the bank's illegal scheme and, consequently, the vice president's injury did not flow directly from the banking violations. Morast v. Lance, 807 F.2d 926 (11th Cir. 1987).

Forfeiture.

- Trial court properly allowed only individual members of a class to assert their claims against forfeited funds or property because the members were trying to use the property or funds forfeited in the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., proceeding as a recovery "superfund" for their federal class action claims; the members cited no authority supporting the members' contention that a federally certified class in a federal class action case had to be considered to be an "injured person," as that term was used in RICO, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(d), in proceedings instituted under a state RICO forfeiture provision. Smith v. Cisco, 316 Ga. App. 871, 730 S.E.2d 583 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1922, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 976 (Ga. 2012).

While the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(d), allows an injured person to intervene and to make a claim to the forfeited property and that claim is superior to that of the state, there is nothing in the statute that gives injured persons the right to dictate to the state which property should be forfeited to the state; thus, nothing in the statute prevents the state from making a "unilateral decision" concerning which property it will pursue in the forfeiture proceedings. Smith v. Cisco, 316 Ga. App. 871, 730 S.E.2d 583 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1922, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 976 (Ga. 2012).

Bond.

- Because officers failed to move in the trial court for the state to post a bond under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(b), the officers' claim that the trial court erred in not requiring the state to post a bond would not be considered on appeal; the officers did move for the receiver to post a bond, but the trial court had discretion whether or not to require the receiver to give a bond conditioned for the faithful discharge of the trust reposed, O.C.G.A. § 9-8-10, and the trial court did not abuse that discretion. Pittman v. State, 288 Ga. 589, 706 S.E.2d 398 (2011).

Sufficiency of complaint.

- Complaint which alleges that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant having committed at least two similar or interrelated predicate offenses shall survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. State v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 188 Ga. App. 120, 372 S.E.2d 276 (1988).

Former employee's Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., claim, alleging the former employer was defrauding customers and engaging in racial discrimination, failed because there was no evidence the employee was injured by the commission of any predicate acts, and despite the employee's apparent argument to the contrary, racial discrimination was not listed under former paragraph (9) of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3 as a predicate act. Giles v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., F.3d (11th Cir. 2013)(Unpublished).

Preponderance of evidence required.

- 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).

Trial court erred in a bifurcated suit asserting a claim of illegal insurance sales under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Georgia RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., by instructing the jury that the suing passenger of a cab was required to prove the asserted Georgia RICO claims against two cab companies by clear and convincing evidence as the proper standard of proof to have been applied was a preponderance of the evidence. Am. Ass'n of Cab Cos. v. Parham, 291 Ga. App. 33, 661 S.E.2d 161 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C1409, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 690, cert. granted, No. S08G1410, No. S08C1409, 2008 Ga. LEXIS cert. granted, No. S08G1410, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 728 (Ga. 2008).

Preclusion.

- When victims of a fraudulent scheme who sued the perpetrator of the fraud under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., had previously unsuccessfully sued the perpetrator for fraud and related claims, judgment n.o.v. was properly entered in favor of the perpetrator because the victims' claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, as it should have been raised in their previous suits against the perpetrator, which involved the same parties and the same subject matter. Austin v. Cohen, 268 Ga. App. 650, 602 S.E.2d 146 (2004).

Remedy at law does not preclude injunctive relief.

- Even if the plaintiff had a remedy at law in the form of money damages for breach of contract, a preliminary injunction was proper when issued in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6. Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 270 Ga. 95, 507 S.E.2d 730 (1998).

Proof required for treble damages.

- In an action based on a violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20, prohibiting the making of false statements, even though plaintiff had to show the defendants' criminal acts injured plaintiff to recover treble damages, plaintiff's inability to show that plaintiff was actually misled by the false statements was not fatal. Maddox v. Southern Eng'g Co., 216 Ga. App. 6, 453 S.E.2d 70 (1994).

Attorney fees.

- In light of the practical difficulties required in allocating attorney fees to specific claims in Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., cases, it will not be required unless the unsuccessful claims and those not receiving awards of attorney fees are distinctly different claims for relief, based on different facts and legal theories. Dee v. Sweet, 218 Ga. App. 18, 460 S.E.2d 110 (1995).

Damages award of $1.00 was sufficient to justify the award of attorney fees. Dee v. Sweet, 218 Ga. App. 18, 460 S.E.2d 110 (1995).

Prevailing plaintiffs in a RICO action could recover attorney fees and costs related to the investigation and litigation of actions necessary to collect on the RICO judgment they were awarded. Dee v. Sweet, 268 Ga. 346, 489 S.E.2d 823 (1997).

Plain language of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c) makes it clear that the statutory award of attorneys' fees represents a separate and distinct interest awarded to compensate each injured plaintiff individually. Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., 200 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2000).

Each plaintiff's share of the attorneys' fees recoverable under Georgia's RICO statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., may not be aggregated to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement because under Georgia law each individual plaintiff has a separate and distinct statutory right or claim to recover those attorneys' fees, and Georgia law provides that those fees are to compensate the injured plaintiff. Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., 200 F.3d 753 (11th Cir. 2000).

Arbitration agreements' class action waiver was valid and enforceable because the arbitration agreements expressly permitted the borrower/plaintiff and the other consumers to recover attorneys' fees and expenses "if allowed by statute or applicable law" and such relief was available under the applicable law, Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c). Jenkins v. First Am. Cash Advance of Ga., LLC, 400 F.3d 868 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1214, 126 S. Ct. 1457, 164 L. Ed. 2d 132 (2006).

Exhaustion of administrative remedies.

- Allegation of Insurance Code violations does not transform a civil RICO complaint into a cause of action which must be pursued exclusively through administrative channels, particularly when numerous other predicate acts are alleged in the complaint including fraud. Provident Indem. Life Ins. Co. v. James, 234 Ga. App. 403, 506 S.E.2d 892 (1998).

Bankruptcy.

- State racketeering action against the family of a debtor based on a property transfer to avoid debt collection was not property of a bankruptcy estate because a trustee stood in the shoes of the debtor, who could not have asserted the action against the family due to a role as a coconspirator. Johnson v. Flatau (In re Stewart), 329 Bankr. 910 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2005), aff'd, 339 Bankr. 524 (M.D. Ga. 2006).

Automatic stay did not prohibit a state racketeering action brought against the family of a debtor relating to the transfer of property to avoid debt collection because a judgment against the family would not have been in effect a judgment against the estate; the family was not entitled to indemnity from the estate. Johnson v. Flatau (In re Stewart), 329 Bankr. 910 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2005), aff'd, 339 Bankr. 524 (M.D. Ga. 2006).

Treble damages and attorneys fees awarded.

- Internet service provider's success on both the provider's federal and state RICO claims each independently mandated the trebling of the provider's damages, including the provider's attorneys fees, under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c), respectively, against an individual who had stolen Internet accounts in order to engage in unlawful spamming and spoofing activities. Earthlink, Inc. v. Carmack, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. May 7, 2003).

Estoppel to contest liability following criminal conviction.

- Trial court erred in denying an investor's motion for partial summary judgment as to the business person's liability on the investor's civil Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., claim against the business person because the business person's criminal conviction estopped the business person from contesting civil liability pursuant to RICO, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(c). Cox v. Mayan Lagoon Estates Ltd., 319 Ga. App. 101, 734 S.E.2d 883 (2012).

Cited in Doxie v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 603 F. Supp. 624 (S.D. Ga. 1984); Johnson v. Fleet Fin., Inc., 785 F. Supp. 1003 (S.D. Ga. 1992); Blalock v. Anneewakee, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 676, 426 S.E.2d 165 (1992); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2007); Cisco v. State, 285 Ga. 656, 680 S.E.2d 831 (2009); Austin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 293 Ga. 42, 743 S.E.2d 399 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Construction and application of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) nationwide service of process provision, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1965, 65 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 21.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6

Total Results: 14  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Chancey v. State, 349 S.E.2d 717 (Ga. 1986).

Cited 154 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 13, 1986 | 256 Ga. 415

...in `any enterprise,' including their own, `through a pattern of racketeering activity.'" United States v. Hawes, 529 F2d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 1976); e.g., United States v. Morelli, 643 F2d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 1981). (E) Appellants also argue that OCGA § 16-14-6 (5) (e) violates equal protection in providing that a defendant is estopped in a subsequent civil action as to all matters proved in the criminal proceeding....
Copy

Williams Gen. Corp. v. Stone, 614 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 40 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 16, 2005 | 279 Ga. 428, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1850

...ed pattern of criminal activity motivated by or the effect of which is pecuniary gain or economic or physical threat or injury," OCGA § 16-14-2(b), see OCGA § 16-14-5, and civil remedies to compensate those injured by reason of such acts. See OCGA § 16-14-6. On the civil side of the Act, OCGA § 16-14-6(c) provides, in pertinent part: [a]ny person who is injured by reason of any violation of [the RICO Act] shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages....
...415(I), 349 S.E.2d 717 (1986). See also Southern Intermodal Logistics v. D.J. Powers Company, 10 F.Supp.2d 1337(III)(A) (N.D.Ga.1998) (applying preponderance of evidence standard to Georgia civil RICO claim). Punitive damages, which are authorized by OCGA § 16-14-6(c) in those cases "where appropriate," serve the legislative purpose of imposing sanctions, whereas treble damages, which are authorized by the statute without reservation in every civil RICO action, further RICO's goal of compensating vic...
Copy

Harper v. State, 292 Ga. 557 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 18, 2013 | 738 S.E.2d 584, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 299

...es. If a criminal prosecution or civil action is brought by the state to punish or prevent any violation of this chapter, then the running of this period of limitations, with respect to any cause of action arising under subsection (b) or (c) of Code Section 16-14-6 which is based upon any matter complained of in such prosecution or action by the state, shall be suspended during the pendency of the prosecution or action by the state and for two years thereafter. OCGA § 17-3-1 reads: (a) A pro...
Copy

Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc., 300 Ga. 475 (Ga. 2017).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 23, 2017 | 796 S.E.2d 255

...ver in addition to compensatory damages. See, e.g., OCGA § 43-17-14 (a) (Georgia Charitable Solicitations Act allows a suit to recover “general damages sustained” and “[e]xemplary damages . . . *478in cases of intentional violations”); OCGA § 16-14-6 (c) (Georgia RICO Act violation allows for “three times the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages”); see also OCGA §§ 16-9-129 (allowing for “actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive dam...
Copy

Cisco v. State, 680 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. 2009).

Cited 22 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2009 | 285 Ga. 656, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 2024, 58 A.L.R. 6th 809

...The in personam RICO forfeiture proceeding discussed in that case was initiated pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2314, which requires that state's attorney general or a county attorney to act "on behalf of" a private person in bringing a civil RICO action. Id. at (A). The Arizona statute is thus comparable to OCGA § 16-14-6, which sets forth "[a]vailable civil remedies" for RICO violations which may be pursued by "[a]ny aggrieved person," id. at (b), although, unlike OCGA § 16-14-6, the Arizona statute includes as a civil remedy the option of a civil asset forfeiture....
...lternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. Id., 522 U.S. at 99-100, 118 S.Ct. 488. [5] The only forfeiture allowed under OCGA § 16-14-6 is the forfeiture of a Georgia corporation's charter upon a finding that its board of directors or managerial agent acted in violation of OCGA § 16-14-4. See OCGA § 16-14-6(a)(5)....
Copy

State v. Singh, 291 Ga. 525 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 19 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 10, 2012 | 731 S.E.2d 649, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 2778

Benham, Justice. The State of Georgia ex rel. Tracy Graham-Lawson, District Attorney for the Clayton County Judicial Circuit, filed an in personam action pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-6 (b)1 of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Georgia RICO Act), OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq., against Hargurtag Singh and his company Rajan Singh, LLC (collectively, “Singh”), seeking equitable relief afforded by OCGA § 16-14-6 (a) (l)-(4), including injunctive relief to stop the alienation of Singh’s property and the appointment of a receiver over Singh’s business and property.2 The complaint also sought the forfeiture of certain property as defendants in rem pursuanttoOCGA § 16-14-7....
...883, 884 (655 SE2d 605) (2008). However, the appealability of an order is ultimately determined by its substance and effect, not its nomenclature. Id. at 885. Here, the State contends that when the trial court found the proceeding pursuant to OCGA § 16-14-6 to be unconstitutional and dismissed the claims against the in personam defendants, the ruling effectively dismissed the temporary injunctive relief and the receivership as to all defendants....
...ursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), and the case is properly before this Court. Accordingly, Mr. Singh’s motion to dismiss the State’s appeal is denied. 2. In Case No. S12A0852, the State contends the trial court erred when it dismissed the OCGA § 16-14-6 claims against the in person-am defendants on the grounds that such claims under Georgia’s RICO Act were unconstitutional....
...ed to be applied as they are applied in criminal proceedings. 285 Ga. at 663. In the absence of such safeguards, we could not uphold OCGA § 16-14-7 (m). In Pittman, supra, 288 Ga. at 594, we made no decisions regarding the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-14-6, but Justice Hunstein stated in her concurrence: [N]othingin [OCGA § 16-14-6] authorizes an“endrun” around our holding in Cisco....
...l “civil” in personam RICO proceedings in our state courts. Relying on Cisco and Justice Hunstein’s concurrence in Pittman, the trial court in this case determined that the in personam civil divestiture of assets and the relief provided by OCGA§ 16-14-6 was unconstitutional....
...The fact that these remedies are sought in conjunction with an in rem forfeiture does not convert such a proceeding into the type of in personam forfeiture action under OCGA § 16-14-7 (m) which we found to be unconstitutional in Cisco. Patel, 289 Ga. at 482. Since the equitable remedies allowed by OCGA § 16-14-6 (a) are available to other aggrieved parties as well as to the State (see OCGA § 16-14-6 (b)), an action for such remedies is uncharacteristic of a criminal matter. Id.4 Indeed, none of the subsections of OCGA § 16-14-6 requires proof of criminal conduct on the part of the in personam defendants, but the statute allows the superior court to enjoin any violations of OCGA § 16-14-4, which generally prohibits racketeering activity, until the case is resolved....
...the State to relief. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (6) is sustained. Judgment reversed in Case No. S12A0852. Judgment affirmed in Case No. S12X0973. All the Justices concur. OCGA § 16-14-6 (b) provides: Any aggrieved person or the state may institute a proceeding under subsection (a) of this Code section....
...Upon the execution of proper bond against damages for an injunction improvidently granted and a showing of immediate danger of significant loss or damage, a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction may be issued in any such action before a final determination on the merits. OCGA § 16-14-6 (a) (l)-(4) provides: Any superior court may, after making due provisions for the rights of innocent persons, enjoin violations of Code Section 16-14-4 by issuing appropriate orders and judgments including, but not limited to: (1) Orderin...
.... OCGA§ 16-14-7 (m) provided in pertinent part: “In lieu of [in rem forfeiture proceedings], the state may bring an in personam action for the forfeiture of any property subject to forfeiture under subsection (a) of this Code section.” “The only forfeiture allowed under OCGA § 16-14-6 is the forfeiture of a Georgia corporation’s charter upon a finding that its board of directors or managerial agent acted in violation of OCGA § 16-14-4. OCGA § 16-14-6 (a) (5).” Cisco, supra, 285 Ga....
Copy

Patel v. State, 713 S.E.2d 381 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 5, 2011 | 289 Ga. 479

...spective stores to play electronic gaming devices located on the premises, with winnings paid out in cash; it was alleged that this constituted racketeering activity under OCGA § 16-14-3(8) and (9). The complaints sought relief provided for in OCGA § 16-14-6(a)....
...Cisco, supra at 660(1), 680 S.E.2d 831. But such is not at issue here. What is at stake in an interlocutory injunction and receivership action is the application of equitable principles for the protection of the parties. Pittman, supra. In fact, under OCGA § 16-14-6(b), the remedies of injunction and receivership are available to "[a]ny aggrieved person," not only to the State, which is inconsistent with such remedies being considered criminal matters....
...State of Ga., 285 Ga. 656, 680 S.E.2d 831 (2009)]," Pittman v. State of Ga., 288 Ga. 589, 594, 706 S.E.2d 398 (2011) (Hunstein, C.J., concurring), I must dissent. Unlike the majority, I simply cannot turn a blind eye to the blatant and intentional use of OCGA § 16-14-6(a) in a manner that results in the same type of criminal sanction that we found unconstitutional in Cisco, supra....
...[4] Pittman involved a complaint also filed on March 8, 2010, by the same District Attorney, asserting the same RICO violations, and was the subject of an order filed on April 9, 2010, by the same judge as in the five cases now on appeal. [5] OCGA § 16-14-6(b) reads: Any aggrieved person or the state may institute a proceeding under subsection (a) of this Code section....
...The trial judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion. [14] The defendants enumerate as error the trial court's orders entered on June 24, 2010, which denied their motions of May 19, 2010 "to Require Supersedeas Bond," although primarily premised on OCGA § 16-14-6(b)....
Copy

Dee v. Sweet, 489 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 15, 1997 | 268 Ga. 346, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3398

...*824 James Francis Bogan, III, Matthew H. Patton, Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, for Sweet et al. Michael E. Hobbs, Asst. Atty. Gen., State Law Department, Atlanta, Amicus Appellant. HUNSTEIN, Justice. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of that provision in OCGA § 16-14-6(c) which authorizes the award of attorney fees in the appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred by a party injured by violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq....
...nd averred that that action was pending before the same judge presiding over the RICO case. After hearing oral argument on the issue, the trial court granted appellees' motion for fees and costs, rejected appellants' constitutional challenge to OCGA § 16-14-6(c), and awarded appellees the exact sum requested. Appellants have again appealed. We affirm the trial court's judgment because *825 OCGA § 16-14-6(c) does not violate equal protection or due process or chill the rights of litigants seeking appellate review; the statute authorizes the recovery of post-trial attorney fees and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred; and we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in concluding that the amount sought by appellees was reasonably incurred. 1. OCGA § 16-14-6(c) provides in pertinent part that [a]ny person who is injured by reason of any violation of [the RICO statute, OCGA § 16-14-4] shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages. Such person shall also recover attorneys' fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred. [1] Appellants argue that OCGA § 16-14-6(c) violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions and chills the exercise of the appellate rights of RICO defendants because it treats defendants appealing RICO judgments different from parties...
...841(1), 285 S.E.2d 697 (1982) (due process analysis). The purpose of the Georgia RICO Act is "to impose sanctions against [the] subversion of the economy by organized criminal elements and to provide compensation to private persons injured thereby." OCGA § 16-14-2(b). OCGA § 16-14-6(c) promotes this legislative purpose in that it provides compensation to civil plaintiffs who have successfully established that they have been injured by a defendant's RICO violations by including in the amount recoverable those attorney fees and costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred by plaintiffs in the trial and appellate courts. [2] By authorizing the recovery of appellate fees and costs, OCGA § 16-14-6(c) provides RICO plaintiffs with effective access to the judicial process, thus enabling them to present on appeal the reasons why the RICO judgments they obtained should be upheld....
...l responsibility of attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred by RICO plaintiffs in response to appellate litigation a RICO defendant elects to pursue upon judgment being entered in favor of the RICO plaintiff. [3] The RICO defendants to whom OCGA § 16-14-6(c) applies are parties who, as the result of successful litigation commenced by civil plaintiffs, have been found by a jury to have committed two or more predicate criminal acts which have resulted in injury to the plaintiffs, id.; OCGA §...
...Given the compensatory goal of the Georgia RICO Act, there is a reasonable basis for the Legislature's distinction between types of appealing defendants and a direct relation between the classification and the purpose of the Act. Therefore, we find that OCGA § 16-14-6(c) does not violate the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection or deny access to the courts. [4] 2. Appellants contend the trial court erred by allowing appellees to recover posttrial attorney fees and other costs under OCGA § 16-14-6(c) for any litigation other than the RICO action itself....
...for services not directly attributable to the labor of appellees' attorney or the investigation and litigation of the RICO and collection actions. We decline appellants' invitation to limit the trial court's discretion so as to authorize under OCGA § 16-14-6(c) appellees' recovery of only those amounts paid as compensation to the attorney and costs strictly associated with investigating and litigating the collection actions as we conclude from the statutory language that the Legislature reject...
...s Act litigation). We find no abuse here in the trial court's ruling that appellees reasonably incurred the sums sought in their motion and thus affirm the trial court's award of those sums. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 16-14-6(c), like the award of attorney fees under its counterpart in the Federal RICO Act, 18 USC § 1964(c), "marks an exception to the `American Rule,' under which each party to a litigation is generally obliged to bear its own attorney's fees regardless of outcome....
...Joseph, Civil RICO A Definitive Guide, p. 122 § 21(B) (1992). There are more than two hundred federal provisions that shift fees to prevailing parties. Id. [2] Although "reasonably incurred" would seem to modify only "costs of investigation and litigation," we interpret OCGA § 16-14-6(c) as providing that the attorney fees sought by successful plaintiffs must likewise be "reasonably incurred." [3] This finding likewise applies to fees and costs associated with any post-judgment litigation RICO plaintiffs are forced to pursue by defendants' opposition to the collection of the RICO judgment. See Division 2, infra. [4] Because appellants in this case had no partial success in the trial of the RICO action, have never been successful on appeal, and have adduced no evidence of indigency, we do not address their arguments that OCGA § 16-14-6(c) is unconstitutional because it applies to RICO defendants who may have prevailed in part at trial, raised meritorious appeals, or been precluded from accessing the appellate courts due to indigency.
Copy

City of Atlanta Bd. of Zoning Adjustment v. Midtown North, Ltd., 360 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. 1987).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 24, 1987 | 257 Ga. 496

Copy

Junior v. Graham, 870 S.E.2d 378 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 8, 2022 | 313 Ga. 420

...He is entitled to only one satisfaction of the same damages, in either contract or tort.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). An exception to this decisional rule, of course, is where a greater recovery is authorized by statute. Many examples of this are found in the Georgia Code. See, e.g., OCGA §§ 16-14-6 (c) (providing for recovery of treble damages in a civil suit arising from a violation of Georgia’s RICO Act); 44-5-48 (c) (providing for treble damages for a willful violation of the statute’s provisions pertaining to requirements...
Copy

Austin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 293 Ga. 42 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2013 | 743 S.E.2d 399, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 1542

...To arrive at this *48assumption Borrower analogizes the fee award in this case to statutorily authorized treble damages for intentional violation of the Fair Business Practices Act (see OCGA § 10-1-399 (c)) and violation of the Georgia RICO Act (see OCGA § 16-14-6 (c))....
...s of damages. Id. This holding was reversed by this Court in Williams, supra, noting that the purpose of treble damages in the Georgia RICO Act is distinct from the purpose of punitive damages, also provided by that Act. The Georgia RICO Act at OCGA § 16-14-6 (c) provides that an injured person “shall have a cause of action for three times the actual damages sustained, and, where appropriate, punitive damages.” Thus, the legislature must have intended treble damages to be a type of damages that may be recovered other than and in addition *49to punitive damages....
Copy

Pittman v. State, 706 S.E.2d 398 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 28, 2011 | 288 Ga. 589, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 450

...GA § 16-14-3(6). The complaint stated that the State was proceeding in personam against the Pittmans and Jumping Jacks, that their actions violated OCGA § 16-14-4(a), (b), and (c), and that the State was entitled to the relief provided for in OCGA § 16-14-6(a)(1) through (a)(5), including an order divesting them of any interest in any enterprise or property related to the alleged RICO violations....
...failed to show that the court abused its discretion in granting those powers. See Ga. Rehabilitation Center, 284 Ga. at 69-70, 663 S.E.2d 204. 3. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to post a bond under OCGA § 16-14-6(b)....
...non-corporate individuals notwithstanding our holding in Cisco v. State of Ga., 285 Ga. 656, 680 S.E.2d 831 (2009) (civil in personam provisions of the RICO statute are unconstitutional). Contrary to the State's misreading of our discussion of OCGA § 16-14-6 in Cisco, supra at 660, 680 S.E.2d 831, nothing in that statute authorizes an "end run" around our holding in Cisco....
...y can be heard in opposition; and (2) The applicant's attorney certifies to the court, in writing, the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the party's claim that notice should not be required. [2] OCGA § 16-14-6(b) provides as follows: Any aggrieved person or the state may institute a proceeding under subsection (a) of this Code section [which permits a superior court, among other things, to order a defendant to divest himself of "any interest in...
Copy

Cotton, Inc. v. Phil-Dan Trucking, Inc., 507 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 2, 1998 | 270 Ga. 95, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3679

...The court entered a temporary restraining order which prohibited defendants from transferring their real and personal property, unless a transfer was necessary for ordinary personal and business expenses. The court subsequently entered a preliminary injunction to the same effect. Cotton appealed, asserting that OCGA § 16-14-6 (which provides for injunctive relief in a RICO case) is unconstitutional because it delegates police powers to civil litigants; and that the court erred in entering the preliminary injunction. 1. We cannot consider Cotton's constitutional challenge to OCGA § 16-14-6 because no such challenge was raised and ruled upon below....
...Cotton's reliance upon Housing Authority is misplaced. The trial court did not issue the preliminary injunction in this case pursuant to its inherent equitable power. On the contrary, the preliminary injunction was issued in accordance with the statutory authorization set forth in OCGA § 16-14-6. See Dobbs, Handbook on the Law of Remedies, § 2.10 (2nd ed. 1993) (courts can issue statutory injunction even where equitable relief ordinarily would be denied due to adequate legal remedy). 4. OCGA § 16-14-6(b) reads: Any aggrieved person to the state may institute a proceeding under subsection (a) *732 of this Code section....
Copy

Star Residential, LLC v. Hernandez, 860 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. 2021).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 21, 2021 | 311 Ga. 784

...(d) The state, any political subdivision thereof, or any person aggrieved by a criminal street gang or criminal gang activity may bring an action to enjoin violations of this chapter in the same manner as provided in Code Section 16-14-6 [Civil remedies under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]. Read as a whole, OCGA § 16-15-7 provides different causes of action for different remedies with different plaintiffs and defendants....
...that [t]he state, any political subdivision thereof, or any person aggrieved by a criminal street gang or criminal gang activity may bring an action to enjoin violations of this chapter in the same manner as provided in Code Section 16-14-6 [Civil remedies under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act]. Subsection (d) allows individuals aggrieved by a criminal gang or criminal gang activity (as well as governmental entities) to enjoin violati...
...al enterprise, impose restrictions on the defendant’s future investments, order the dissolution of an enterprise, order the revocation of an enterprise’s license to operate in the state, or order the forfeiture of a company’s charter. See OCGA § 16-14-6 (a). The authority for individuals to enjoin certain activities provided in subsection (d) has nothing to do with the abatement of a nuisance by public officials provided in subsections (a) and (b), nor does it have anything to do with damages as provided in subsection (c)....