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

O.C.G.A. § 33-2-6 (2019)

Delegated authority

✓ 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) Any authority, power, or duty vested in the Commissioner by any provision of this title may be exercised, discharged, or performed by any deputy, assistant, examiner, or employee of the department acting in the Commissioner’s name and by his delegated authority.

(b) The Commissioner shall be responsible for the official acts of such persons who act in his name and by his authority.

History

Code 1933, § 56-213, enacted by Ga. L. 1960, p. 289, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ga., Inc. v. Deal, 244 Ga. App. 700, 536 S.E.2d 590 (2000).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Limitation on authority of Commissioner to delegate duties. - Commissioner of Insurance may not delegate to the chief deputy insurance commissioner his membership or duties on the State Depository Board, the State Indemnifica-

tion Commission, the Board of Trustees for the Subsequent Injury Trust Fund, or the State Commission on Condemnation of Public Property. 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-11.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Personal liability of public officials or bond for permitting insurance company or other corporation to engage or

continue in business without complying with statutory requirement, 131 A.L.R. 275.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2007 · leading case: Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc. v. Deal, 536 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc. v. Deal, 536 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 33-2-6. In addition, any subscriber who disagreed with the method of stock distribution employed could have requested a hearing before the Commissioner during the distribution.”
Adams v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (N.D. Ga. 2007). · cites it 2× “Consequently, the Court grants Defendant UnumProvi-dent’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Plaintiffs claims for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 33-2-6, 9-15-14, and 13-6-11.”
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.