O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 3-3-9 (2019)

Penalty for violations of prohibitions in 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

(a) It is unlawful for any person knowingly and intentionally to violate any prohibition contained in this chapter.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates any prohibition contained in this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

History

Code 1933, § 5A-9901, enacted by Ga. L. 1980, p. 1573, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Not criminal act to violate Department of Revenue regulation. - O.C.G.A. §§ 3-3-9 and 3-3-27(c)(2) provide that it is a misdemeanor to violate a prohibition or provision of the Georgia Alcoholic Beverage Code, but these provisions do not make it a criminal act to violate a Georgia Department of Revenue regulation; although the parties intended to circumvent Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r.

560-2-2-.38 by issuing corporate stock to an employee’s wife, the stock agreement was not illegal or immoral; thus, a trial court erred in voiding the stock interest of the employee’s wife, and summary judgment in favor of the corporation in the wife’s action for an accounting, dissolution, and other relief was reversed. Edwards v. Grapefields, Inc., 267 Ga. App. 399, 599 S.E.2d 489 (2004).

ARTICLE 2 PROHIBITED ACTS

Cross references. - Hunting while under influence of intoxicating wines, beers, or liquor, § 27-3-7. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, § 40-5-67 et seq. Regulation of operation

and patronage of billiard rooms where alcoholic beverages are sold, § 43-8-1 et seq. Civil liability of persons selling adulterated alcoholic beverages, § 51-1-24.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Test of intoxicating character of liquor, 4 A.L.R. 1137; 11 A.L.R. 1233; 19 A.L.R. 512; 36 A.L.R. 725; 91 A.L.R. 513. Criminal responsibility of husband for violation of liquor law by wife, 19 A.L.R. 136; 27 A.L.R. 312. Criminal responsibility of one who acts as sentinel during violation of intoxicating liquor law, 64 A.L.R. 427. What constitutes injury to means of support within civil damage or dramshop act, 4 A.L.R.3d 1332. Third person’s participating in or encouraging drinking as barring him from recovering under civil damage or similar acts, 26 A.L.R.3d 1112. Sale of liquor to homosexuals or permitting their congregation at licensed premises as ground for suspension or revocation of liquor license, 27 A.L.R.3d 1254. Homicide: criminal liability for death resulting from unlawfully furnishing intoxicating liquor or drugs to another, 32 A.L.R.3d 589.

Contributory negligence allegedly contributing to cause of injury as defense in Civil Damage Act proceeding, 64 A.L.R.3d 849. Proof of causation of intoxication as a prerequisite to recovery under Civil Damage Act, 64 A.L.R.3d 882. Civil Damage Act: liability of one who furnishes liquor to another for consumption by third parties, for injury caused by consumer, 64 A.L.R.3d 922. Common-law right of action for damage sustained by plaintiff in consequence of sale or gift of intoxicating liquor or habit-forming drug to another, 97 A.L.R.3d 528. Social host’s liability for injuries incurred by third parties as a result of intoxicated guest’s negligence, A.L.R.4th 16. Social host’s liability for death or injuries incurred by person to whom alcohol was served, 54 A.L.R.5th 313.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Edwards v. Grapefields, Inc., 599 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
Edwards v. Grapefields, Inc., 599 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 3-3-9 and 3-3-27 (c) (2) provide that it is a misdemeanor to violate a prohibition or provision of the Act; however, these provisions do not make it a criminal act to violate a Department of Revenue regulation.”
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.