Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 2-2-1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 2-2-1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 2-2-1

TITLE 2 AGRICULTURE

Section 2. Department of Agriculture, 2-2-1 through 2-2-13.

2-2-1. Department of Agriculture established.

There is established a Department of Agriculture for this state.

(Ga. L. 1874, p. 5, § 1; Code 1882, § 1465a; Civil Code 1895, § 1789; Civil Code 1910, § 2065; Code 1933, § 5-101.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agriculture, § 20.

C.J.S.

- 3 C.J.S., Agriculture, § 16.

ALR.

- Constitutionality and construction of state farm aid laws, 92 A.L.R. 768.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 2-2-1 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 20

Colonial Oil Indus., Inc. v. Lynchar, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-06-18

Citation: 815 S.E.2d 917

Snippet: take from, or vary a written contract." OCGA § 13-2-2 (1) ; see also [former] OCGA § 24-6-1. But, in no

Howard v. Howard

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30

Citation: 302 Ga. 451, 807 S.E.2d 379

Snippet: to determine the parties’ intent. See OCGA § 13-2-2 (1); Hortman v. Childress, 162 Ga. App. 536, 537 (292

Women's Surgical Center, LLC v. Berry

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-16

Citation: 302 Ga. 349, 806 S.E.2d 606

Snippet: through31-6-70; Ga. Comp. R. andRegs., rr. 111-2-2-.01 through .42; Ga. Comp. R. and Regs., rr. 274-1-

Patton v. Vanterpool

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-16

Citation: 302 Ga. 253, 806 S.E.2d 493

Snippet: ambiguities is recognized by statute. OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). As for interpretations of statutes, our case

Hart v. Hart

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-09-14

Citation: 297 Ga. 709, 777 S.E.2d 431, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 658

Snippet: agreement and the surrounding circumstances); OCGA § 13-2-2 (1) (attendant and surrounding circumstances may be

Harper v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-02-18

Citation: 292 Ga. 557, 738 S.E.2d 584, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 299, 2013 WL 593494, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 145

Snippet: covered by the tolling provision of OCGA § 17-3-2.2,1 must respectfully dissent from Division 2 of the

Archer Western Contractors, Ltd. v. Estate of Pitts

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-11-27

Citation: 292 Ga. 219, 735 S.E.2d 772

Snippet: if the ambiguity is only latent. See OCGA § 13-2-2 (1) (“All the attendant and surrounding circumstances

Allen v. SEA GARDENS SEAFOOD, INC.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-03-19

Citation: 723 S.E.2d 669, 290 Ga. 715, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 943, 2012 WL 933071, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 289

Snippet: "attendant and surrounding circumstances," see OCGA § 13-2-2(1), comports *672 with common sense. Appellants would

Favorito v. Handel

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-09-28

Citation: 684 S.E.2d 257, 285 Ga. 795, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3047, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 486, 2009 WL 3062995

Snippet: as to include "electronic" ballots. OCGA §§ 21-2-2 (1), (18), 21-2-280. Furthermore, other jurisdictions

Wallace v. Bock

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-10-11

Citation: 620 S.E.2d 820, 279 Ga. 744, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 3129, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 658

Snippet: 143(6), 31 S.E.2d 20 (1944). See also OCGA § 13-2-2(1). This case, however, concerns the connection between

John Deere Co. v. Haralson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-07-12

Citation: 599 S.E.2d 164, 278 Ga. 192, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2334, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 552

Snippet: take from, or vary a written contract." OCGA § 13-2-2(1); see also OCGA § 24-6-1. But, in no way does parol

Jackson v. Tolliver

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2003-09-15

Citation: 586 S.E.2d 321, 277 Ga. 58, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 2722, 2003 Ga. LEXIS 733

Snippet: that they acquired prescriptive title to Tract 2.[2] 1. Where an appeal is from a judgment denying a motion

Golden Peanut Co. v. Bass

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-04-29

Citation: 563 S.E.2d 116, 275 Ga. 145, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 514, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 1287, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 362, 2002 WL 746004

Snippet: cited the general contract provisions of OCGA § 13-2-2(1), rather than the specific sales provisions of OCGA

Brown v. Blackmon

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2000-05-30

Citation: 530 S.E.2d 712, 272 Ga. 435, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2012, 2000 Ga. LEXIS 474

Snippet: making of such an inconsistent assertion. OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). The gravamen of the claim appears to be that

A. Atlanta Autosave, Inc. v. Generali - U. S. Branch

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-03-19

Citation: 514 S.E.2d 651, 270 Ga. 757, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 1127, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 307

Snippet: susceptible to variance by parol evidence. OCGA § 13-2-2 (1); American Cyanamid Co. v. Ring, 248 Ga. 673, 674

R.R.R. Ltd. Partnership v. Recreational Services, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-09-26

Citation: 264 Ga. 494, 448 S.E.2d 211, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 786

Snippet: take from, or vary a written contract.” OCGA § 13-2-2 (1). The parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction

Service Corporation International v. H. M. Patterson & Son, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1993-09-13

Citation: 434 S.E.2d 455, 263 Ga. 412, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 3300, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 627

Snippet: Stat. § 60.397; Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 2.02-1 K; Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.08.530; Wisc. Stat. §

Daniel v. Douglas County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-02-27

Citation: 401 S.E.2d 508, 261 Ga. 103, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 99

Snippet: explanation of the ambiguity as provided by OCGA § 13-2-2(1).[2] With the benefit of the undisputed evidence

Lawhorne v. Soltis

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1989-10-26

Citation: 384 S.E.2d 662, 259 Ga. 502

Snippet: prohibits. Georgia's parol evidence rule, OCGA § 13-2-2 (1), provides that "parol evidence is inadmissible

Quigley v. Jones

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1985-10-01

Citation: 334 S.E.2d 664, 255 Ga. 33, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 856

Snippet: rule into the parties’ contract. See OCGA § 13-2-2 (1); Kelson Cos. v. Feingold, 168 Ga. App. 391, 393