O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 16-9-129 (2019)
Actual and punitive damages available to business victim
✓ 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
Any business victim who is injured by reason of any violation of this article shall have a cause of action for the actual damages sustained and, where appropriate, punitive damages. Such business victim may also recover attorney’s fees in the trial and appellate courts and the costs of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred.
History
(Code 1981, § 16-9-129, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 551, § 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2007–2017 · leading case: Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc., 796 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. 2017).
Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc., 796 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. 2017). “*478 in 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,…”
Lee v. State, 642 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). “Moreover, the only place in the entire forgery and fraudulent practices article in which the term “business victim” is actually used is OCGA § 16-9-129, which provides that a business victim under the article shall have a cause of action for actual damages sustained, punitive…”
Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc (Ga. 2017). “in 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,…”
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.