
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1920, p. 132, § 1; Ga. L. 1921, p. 179, § 1; Code 1933, § 84-702; Ga. L. 1949, p. 1367, § 2; Ga. L. 1956, p. 25, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 815, § 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 484, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 240, § 1; Ga. L. 1981, p. 610, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 590, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 234, § 2.)
- For comment on Rogers v. Medical Ass'n, 244 Ga. 151, 259 S.E.2d 85 (1979), invalidating Georgia statute requiring Governor's appointments to Composite State Board of Medical Examiners be made solely from nominees submitted by state medical society as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to a private organization, see 29 Emory L.J. 1183 (1980).
Constitutionality of statute. See Hortman v. Yarbrough, 214 Ga. 693, 107 S.E.2d 202 (1959) (see O.C.G.A. § 43-11-2).
This law is a general and not a special law and does not offend Ga. Const. 1945, Art. I, Sec. IV, Para. I (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. IV). Hortman v. Yarbrough, 214 Ga. 693, 107 S.E.2d 202 (1959).
- Legislature, by giving to voluntary associations of dentists the right to nominate members of various state agencies, made the association an agency of the State of Georgia to that extent. By excluding black dentists from the association's membership it thereby deprives black dentists of the right to vote in connection with the nomination of dentists to fill places in the agencies. The result of such action is that only dentists approved by those of the white race can be elected to such offices and black dentists can have no voice in their selection. This seems to be a clear violation of U.S. Const., amend. 14. Bell v. Georgia Dental Ass'n, 231 F. Supp. 299 (N.D. Ga. 1964).
- Respondent's testimony admitting that the respondent had performed services for witnesses in making and repairing appliances to be used as teeth, and that the appliances had not been ordered by, or returned to, a licensed dentist, and stating that the respondent had not charged a sufficient amount for services to realize any profit over and above material that went into the work, and an amount to take care of overhead expense since the respondent was enjoined in 1957 from practicing dentistry, showed that the respondent had practiced dentistry under the definition of the law, and the judgment of the trial judge finding the respondent in contempt of court was amply supported by evidence. Hortman v. Georgia Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 214 Ga. 560, 105 S.E.2d 732 (1958).
- Consumer member of the Georgia Board of Dentistry may vote on all matters except those which relate directly to practical and scientific examination for licensing of dental hygienists and dentists; the dental hygienist member may vote on all matters except those which relate directly to practical and scientific examination for licensure of dentists. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 78-72.
Consumer member for the Georgia Board of Dentistry may vote on any matter coming before the board without restriction; to the extent that the amendment of O.C.G.A. § 43-1-18 in 2000 changed the voting authority of the consumer member, the views expressed in 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. 78-72 are modified. Voting rights of the dental hygienist member are unaffected by the statutory change and remain as expressed in the prior opinion. 2004 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 04-2.
- 66 C.J.S., Nuisances, §§ 7 et seq., 15, 65, 68, 71, 74, 86, 89, 91, 92, 103, 104, 108.
- Disqualification, for bias or interest, of member of occupation or profession sitting in license revocation proceeding, 97 A.L.R.2d 1210.
Total Results: 1 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First