O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 26-4-2 (2019)

Liberal construction of chapter

✓ 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

The practice of pharmacy in this state is declared to be a learned profession and the practice of pharmacy affects the public health, safety, and welfare and is subject to regulation and control in the public interest. It is further declared to be a matter of public interest and concern that the practice of pharmacy in this state as a learned profession, as defined in this chapter, should merit and receive the confidence of the public and that only qualified persons be permitted to engage in the practice of pharmacy to ensure the quality of drugs and related devices distributed in this state. This chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out these objectives and purposes.

History

Code 1981, § 26-4-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 686, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1987–1997 · leading case: Harrell v. Lusk, 439 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harrell v. Lusk, 439 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1994). · cites it 8× “The practice of pharmacy is regulated by the State Board of Pharmacy, OCGA § 26-4-37, and an applicant is entitled to receive a license to practice pharmacy only upon compliance with the requirements in OCGA § 26-4-72, including graduating from a recognized school or college of…”

Sinkfield v. Oh, 495 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “With all of his knowledge of drugs and medications, nothing in Dr. Proctor’s affidavit shows that he is even authorized to write a prescription for the dispensation of Motrin 800 in this state.”

Foster v. Georgia Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 359 S.E.2d 877 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 26-4-2 (7) (B) and (C). “[A]n article that happens to be a food but is intended for use in the treatment of disease fits squarely within the drug definition in part B of Section 321 (g) (1) [of the FDCA] and may be regulated as such.”

Harrell v. Lusk, 430 S.E.2d 653 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Although pharmacy is defined as a profession in OCGA § 26-4-2 (16) (A), the State Board of Pharmacy, which is charged with regulating and licensing pharmacists, was created pursuant to Article 2 of Title 26 of the Georgia Code.”

— 26-4-2(20) — 1 case

Sinkfield v. Oh, 495 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). “With all of his knowledge of drugs and medications, nothing in Dr. Proctor’s affidavit shows that he is even authorized to write a prescription for the dispensation of Motrin 800 in this state.”

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.