O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) This article shall not apply to:
(1) Farmers or groups of farmers in the sale of agricultural products grown by themselves; (2) Persons who buy for cash, paying at the time of purchase in United States currency, certified check, cashier’s check, or the equivalent; or (3) Holders of food sales establishment licenses issued pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 2 of Title 26, the ‘‘Georgia Food Act,’’ who conduct no business at the wholesale level and who have fewer than ten employees. (b) No warehouse that is in full compliance with the provisions of Article 1 of Chapter 4 of Title 10 shall be required to obtain a license or maintain a surety bond under this article.
History
Ga. L. 1956, p. 617, § 2; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1450, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1053, § 3; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2149, § 3; Ga. L. 2000,
p. 1510, § 3; Ga. L. 2013, p. 797, § 4/HB 268.
Annotations
RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity of discrimination in license statute or ordinance in favor of farmers selling their own products and
against other persons dealing in farm products, 123 A.L.R. 1051.
Notes of Decisions
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc, 843 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 15× “As explained below, we conclude, first, that an entity as described by the district court does qualify as a dealer in agricultural products under the Act and is not exempt under OCGA § 2-9-15 (a) (1), with the limited exception of specific transactions “in the sale of…”
Mouzin Bros. Farms LLC v. Dowdy (M.D. Ga. 2022).
· cites it 8× “O.C.G.A. § 2-9-15. In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff alleges that it was not a dealer under the Georgia statute and was not required to have a Georgia agricultural dealer’s license, as it was not purchasing produce from Defendants.”
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2019).
· cites it 5× “San Miguel first argues it is exempt from the Act because it qualifies as a “farmer” pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 2-9-15(a)(1); San Miguel alternatively argues that, but even if it is not exempt, its failure to be licensed does not render the GSA void because, it contends, the Act was…”
— 2-9-15(a)(1) — 1 case
San Miguel Produce, Inc. v. L.G. Herndon Jr. Farms, Inc. (S.D. Ga. 2019).
“San Miguel first argues it is exempt from the Act because it qualifies as a “farmer” pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 2-9-15(a)(1); San Miguel alternatively argues that, but even if it is not exempt, its failure to be licensed does not render the GSA void because, it contends, the Act was…”
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.