O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 43-11-51 (2019)

Practicing dentistry under another’s license

✓ 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

Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity who practices dentistry or performs any dental operation under the protection of another’s license shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years, or both.

History

Ga. L. 1897, p. 119, § 14; Civil Code 1910, § 1751; Code 1933, § 84-9907; Ga.

L. 1999, p. 234, § 20; Ga. L. 2004, p. 720, § 7.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Terms of contract. - Terms of the contract governing the relationship between the orthodontist and the practice management company made it very clear that the company did not intend, and in fact did not, employ the orthodontist to carry out the

company’s own corporate practice of orthodontics and, accordingly, Georgia case law counseled against voiding the contract for illegality. Clower v. Orthalliance, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20038 (N.D. Ga. 2004).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprintable offenses. - Violation of O.C.G.A. § 43-11-51 is not designated as an offense for which fingerprint-

ing is required. 1999 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 99-17.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2007–2007 · leading case: OCA, Inc. v. Bush (In Re OCA, Inc.), 378 B.R. 493 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

OCA, Inc. v. Bush (In Re OCA, Inc.), 378 B.R. 493 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2007). “O.C.G.A. § 43-11-51. 11 . Section 10.2. 12 .”

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.