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

O.C.G.A. § 26-2-23 (2019)

Injunctions for violations of Code Section 26-2-22

✓ O.C.G.A. (archive.org 2024 item): print volumes of 2004-2024, per-volume vintage; older volumes partly replaced by 2019 Release 73 text; no 2025 or 2026 Acts
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

In addition to the remedies provided for in this article, the Commissioner is authorized to apply to the superior court of the appropriate county for an injunction. Such court shall have jurisdiction, upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating Code Section 26-2-22, notwithstanding the existence of an adequate remedy at law.

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 195, § 4.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 36A C.J.S., Food, § 52.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1998–1998 · leading case: Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 551 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “OCGA§ 26-2-23. The impact rule does not apply.”
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.