O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-3 (2019)

‘‘Writing’’ defined

✓ 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

Reserved. Repealed by Ga. L. 2012, p. 899, § 3-5/HB 1176, effective July 1, 2012.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - This Code section was based on Code 1933, § 26-1703, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.

Law reviews. - For article on the 2012 repeal of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 290 (2012).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Signing credit charge, credit sales slip, or credit electronic point of sale terminal, as forgery, 80 A.L.R.6th 599.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Clark v. State, 520 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Clark v. State, 520 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “In turn, OCGA § 16-9-3 provides that the term “‘writing’ includes, but is not limited to, printing or any other method of recording information, money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, trademarks, and other symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification.”

Ebenezer v. State, 383 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 16-9-3. The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the indictment.”

Jackson v. State, 627 S.E.2d 853 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-9-3 (“the word ‘writing’ includes, but is not limited to, printing or any other method of recording.”

Goodwin v. Crawford Cnty. Georgia (M.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “Goodwin can be 6 In Defendants’ reply briefs, they identify the disorderly conduct statute as O.C.G.A. § 16-9-3. [Doc. 66, p. 8]; [Doc.”

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.