O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A. § 26-4-3 (2019)
Legislative intent
✓ 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
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote, preserve, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by and through the effective control and regulation of the practice of pharmacy; the licensure of pharmacists; the licensure, control, and regulation of all sites or persons, in or out of this state that distribute, manufacture, or sell drugs or devices used in the dispensing and administration of drugs within this state; and the regulation and control of such other materials as may be used
in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of injury, illness, and disease of a patient or other individual.
History
Code 1981, § 26-4-3, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 686, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1983–1987 · leading case: Montford v. State, 309 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).
Montford v. State, 309 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983). “” Appellant argues that this charge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and was not authorized by the evidence.”
Sellers v. State, 355 S.E.2d 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 79A-1105 (OCGA § 26-4-3). However, the Court went on to hold in that case, which involved a prosecution against a physician for prescribing a controlled substance for other than a “legitimate medical purpose,” that the statute would be unconstitutionally applied if interpreted…”
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.