O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-90 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act."

History

(Code 1981, § 16-9-90, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 1045, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 6, § 16.)

Annotations

Administrative Rules and Regulations. - The Georgia Protective Order Registry, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Practice and Procedure, Georgia Crime Information Center Council, § 140-2-.19.

Sanctions, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Practice and Procedure, Georgia Crime Information Center Council, § 140-2-.20.

Law reviews. - For survey article on law relating to intellectual property, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 295 (1990). For annual survey article on Intellectual Property law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1305 (2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR. - Disclosure or use of computer application software as misappropriation of trade secret, 30 A.L.R.4th 1250.

Computer fraud, 70 A.L.R.5th 647.

Validity, construction, and application of state computer crime and fraud laws, 87 A.L.R.6th 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Cottrell v. Smith, 788 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cottrell v. Smith, 788 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “(“Cottrell”), from the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) and earlier grants of directed verdicts in this action alleging defamation and related torts, and potentially implicating the constitutionality of portions of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection…”
Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc., 796 S.E.2d 255 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “(“Cellchem”) to work for a competitor, Cellchem sued the Lymans and two companies with which they had affiliated (collectively the “Lymans”), asserting claims for computer theft (see OCGA § 16-9-93 (a)) and computer trespass (see OCGA § 16-9-93 (b)) under the Georgia Computer…”
Sitton v. Print Direction, Inc., 718 S.E.2d 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “35 The trial court, acting as finder of fact, issued an award well within the range of evidence and testimony presented at trial.”
Automated Drawing Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Servs., Inc., 447 S.E.2d 109 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The appellant is mistaken in its contention that the evidence failed to establish a violation of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, OCGA § 16-9-90 et seq., on the ground that the Act re *124 quires an actual physical invasion of a computer.”
LabMD, Inc. v. Tiversa, Inc., 509 F. App'x 842 (11th Cir. 2013). “§ 1030 , and the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-90. Defendants removed the case to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.”
Courtney v. the State, 797 S.E.2d 496 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “7 OCGA § 16-9-90. 8 (Emphasis supplied.)”
Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, LLC, 803 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “We reasoned that both the unappealed verdict for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as the verdict related to violations of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”), see OCGA § 16-9-90 et seq., could support a claim for punitive damages.”
Peridyne Tech. Solutions, LLC v. Matheson Fast Freight, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 1962 ; Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-9-90; Georgia RICO, O.C.G.A.”
Ware v. Am. Recovery Solution Servs., Inc., 749 S.E.2d 775 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “(ARSS) sued Christopher Ware for computer theft and computer trespass under the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, OCGA § 16-9-90 et seq. (the “Act”). Following a bench trial, the court found that Ware committed computer trespass under OCGA § 16-9-93 (b) and awarded ARSS…”
Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, Inc (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “(“Cellchem”) to work for a competitor, Cellchem sued the Lymans and two companies with which they had affiliated (collectively the “Lymans”), asserting claims for computer theft (see OCGA § 16-9-93 (a)) and computer trespass (see OCGA § 16-9-93 (b)) under the Georgia Computer…”
Dale E. Lyman v. Cellchem Int'l, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “We reasoned that both the unappealed verdict for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as the verdict related to violations of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”), see OCGA § 16-9-90 et seq., could support a claim for punitive damages.”
Dhansukh T. Patel v. Duke Hosp., LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Patel subsequently filed the instant action against Duke and Collum, alleging various violations of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”),1 1 See OCGA § 16-9-90 et seq. 3 including computer theft,2 computer trespass,3 computer invasion of privacy,4 and 2 “Any…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.