Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 26-3-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 26 FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS

Section 3. Standards, Labeling, and Adulteration of Drugs and Cosmetics, 26-3-1 through 26-3-24.

ARTICLE 17 COOPERATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY MODERNIZATION ACT

26-3-4. Detention of adulterated or misbranded drugs and cosmetics.

  1. Whenever a duly authorized agent of the State Board of Pharmacy finds or has probable cause to believe that any drug or cosmetic is adulterated or so misbranded as to be dangerous or fraudulent within the meaning of this chapter, he shall affix to such article a tag or other appropriate marking giving notice that such article is, or is suspected of being, adulterated or misbranded and has been detained or embargoed and warning all persons not to remove or dispose of such article by sale or otherwise until permission for removal or disposal is given by the agent or the court. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove or dispose of such detained or embargoed article by sale or otherwise without permission.
  2. When an article detained or embargoed under subsection (a) of this Code section has been found by such agent to be adulterated or misbranded, he shall petition the judge of the superior court of the appropriate county for an action for condemnation of such article. When such agent has found that an article so detained or embargoed is not adulterated or misbranded, he shall remove the tags or other markings.
  3. If the court finds that a detained or embargoed article is adulterated or misbranded, such article shall, after entry of the decree, be destroyed at the expense of the claimant thereof under the supervision of the State Board of Pharmacy; and all court costs and fees, storage, and other proper expenses shall be taxed against the claimant of such articles or his agent, provided that when the adulteration or misbranding can be corrected by proper labeling or processing of the article, the court, after entry of the decree and after such costs, fees, and expenses have been paid and a good and sufficient bond, conditioned that such article shall be so labeled or processed, has been executed, may by proper order direct that such article be delivered to the claimant thereof for such labeling or processing under the supervision of an agent of the State Board of Pharmacy. The expense of such supervision shall be paid by the claimant. Such article shall be returned to the claimant of the article on representation to the court by the State Board of Pharmacy that the article is no longer in violation of this chapter and that the expense of such supervision has been paid.
  4. Whenever the State Board of Pharmacy or any of its authorized agents shall find in any room, building, vehicle for transportation, or other structure any drug, device, or cosmetic which is unsound or contains any filthy, decomposed, or putrid substance or that may be poisonous or deleterious to health or otherwise unsafe, the same being declared to be a nuisance, the State Board of Pharmacy or its authorized agents shall immediately condemn or destroy the same.

(Ga. L. 1961, p. 529, § 6; Code 1933, § 79A-1005, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 296, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 26.)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics, §§ 171-173.

ALR.

- Right to jury trial in case of seizure of property alleged to be illegally used, 17 A.L.R. 568; 50 A.L.R. 97.

Provisions of statutes against misbranding or false labeling of food, drug, or cosmetic products, as applicable to literature other than that attached to product itself, 143 A.L.R. 1453.

Promotional efforts directed toward prescribing physician as affecting prescription drug manufacturer's liability for product-caused injury, 94 A.L.R.3d 1080.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 26-3-4 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 2

Franklin v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-03-21

Citation: 298 Ga. 636, 784 S.E.2d 359, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 237

Snippet: so, see Anderson v. State, 262 Ga. 26 (3), (4) (413 SE2d 732) (1992) (no error in sending written

Harrell v. Lusk

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-02-07

Citation: 439 S.E.2d 896, 263 Ga. 895, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 484, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 73

Snippet: professional license pursuant to Chapter 4 of Title 26.3 4 Because a suit that calls into question the conduct