O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 3-5-31 (2019)

Brewer-wholesaler relations - License requirement for shippers of beer; application

✓ 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) No shipper shall be permitted to ship beer into the state without first obtaining a proper license from the commissioner in the manner provided in this title.

(b) In addition to the bond required in Code Section 3-5-25.1 and such other documentation required by the commissioner pursuant to this title, each shipper shall:

(1) Submit with his application one label for each brand of beer to be shipped for the first time by the shipper into the state;

(2) Designate in the application for registration sales territories for each of its brands sold in Georgia; and

(3) Name one licensed wholesaler in each territory who, within the territory, shall be the exclusive distributor of the brand within the territory.

(c) Designations of wholesalers or wholesalers’ territories as provided in this Code section shall be initially approved by the commissioner and shall not be changed nor initially disapproved except for cause. The commissioner shall determine cause after a hearing under regulations promulgated by the commissioner for such purposes.

History

Code 1981, § 3-5-31, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1214, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Exclusive distributor permitted. - O.C.G.A. § 3-5-31(a) permitted the Georgia Department of Revenue to implement a regulation that named one licensed wholesaler in each sales territory who, within the territory, was the exclusive

distributor of a brand of malt beverage within the sales territory, as the plain language of the statute permitted the department to do so. Ga. Oilmen’s Ass’n v. Ga. Dep’t of Revenue, 261 Ga. App. 393, 582 S.E.2d 549 (2003).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Georgia Oilmen's Ass'n v. Dep't of Revenue, 582 S.E.2d 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “02 is invalid because it: (i) impermissibly expands the scope of OCGA § 3-5-31, the statute on which it is modeled, and (ii) conflicts with Ga.”
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.