Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 3-2-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 3 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Section 2. State Administration and Enforcement, 3-2-1 through 3-2-36.

ARTICLE 1 ADMINISTRATION

3-2-4. Sale, distribution, or other dealing in alcoholic beverages by employees, agents, or officers of department prohibited; exemption.

  1. No employee, agent, or officer of the department, directly or indirectly, shall have any interest whatsoever in manufacturing, selling, transporting, distributing, storing, or otherwise dealing in alcoholic beverages, except in the performance of his official duties.
  2. The commissioner may provide by rule for the exemption of employees of the department from the provisions of this Code section so as to permit employment within the alcoholic beverage trade when such employment would pose no conflict of interest or interference with the performance by the employee of his duties as an employee of the department. This subsection shall not apply with respect to employees having responsibility for enforcement of this title.

(Code 1933, § 5A-304, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1573, § 1.)

Cases Citing Georgia Code 3-2-4 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 11

In the Matter of Reginald J. Lewis

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-05-03

Snippet: of Rules 1.4, 1.16 (d), and 3.2. 4 Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488

Hager v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11

Snippet: evidence admissible pursuant to former OCGA § 24-3-2.4 Pursuant to the terms of former OCGA § 24-3-2:

Hager v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-05-11

Citation: 297 Ga. 112, 772 S.E.2d 692, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 302

Snippet: evidence admissible pursuant to former OCGA § 24-3-2. 4 Pursuant to the terms of former OCGA §

In re Watson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-02-24

Citation: 294 Ga. 616, 755 S.E.2d 199, 2014 Fulton County D. Rep. 271, 2014 WL 696573, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 133

Snippet: admitted violations of Rules 3-4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-3.2, 4-3.3 (d), 4-5.1 (a)-(c), 4-5.3 (b)-(c), and 4-8

in the Matter of Marshall C. Watson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-02-24

Snippet: admitted violations of Rules 3- 4.3, 4-1.1, 4-1.3, 4-3.2, 4-3.3 (d), 4-5.1 (a)-(c), 4-5.3 (b)-(c), and 4-8

Brown v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-11-05

Citation: 291 Ga. 892, 734 S.E.2d 23, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3438, 2012 WL 5381251, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 866

Snippet: as original documentary evidence. See OCGA § 24-3-2;4 see Forrester v. State, 315 Ga. App. 1, 7 (3) (726

Raber v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-03-23

Citation: 674 S.E.2d 884, 285 Ga. 251, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 1019, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 95

Snippet: action against them pursuant to Board Rule 360-3-.02 (4). They are likely also aware that a small minority

In Re Ballard

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-05-08

Citation: 629 S.E.2d 809, 280 Ga. 504, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1415, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 265

Snippet: violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(I), 1.15(II), 1.16, 3.2, 4.1, and 8.4(a)(4) of Bar Rule 4-102(d). Ballard

Sawnee Electric Membership Corp. v. Georgia Public Service Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-03-19

Citation: 544 S.E.2d 158, 273 Ga. 702, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 937, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 253

Snippet: legislative goals of the GTESA as set forth in OCGA § 46-3-2.4 Accordingly, because there are no reasons, *710weighty

Williams v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-10-06

Citation: 490 S.E.2d 381, 268 Ga. 452, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3720, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 620

Snippet: 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [3] See OCGA § 24-3-2. [4] Render v. State, 267 Ga. 848, 849-850(2), 483

Poulos v. McMahan

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1982-11-30

Citation: 297 S.E.2d 451, 250 Ga. 354, 1982 Ga. LEXIS 1252

Snippet: supra, at *358p. 513.7 (c) However, in Lalli, a 3-2-4 plurality of the Court upheld the constitutionality