O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-5-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as “The Credit Card and Credit Card Bank Act.”

History

Code 1981, § 7-5-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1987, p. 268, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Proof of Facts. Violation of the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z, 73 POF3d 275. ALR. What constitutes Truth in Lending Act violation which “was not intentional and resulted from bona fide error not withstanding maintenance of procedures

reasonably adapted to avoid any such error” within meaning of § 130(c) of Act (15 USCA § 1640(c)), 153 A.L.R. Fed. 193. Validity, construction, and application of Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and regulations promulgated thereunder - United States Supreme Court cases, 67 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 567.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2013 · leading case: Bankwest, Inc. v. Baker, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bankwest, Inc. v. Baker, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “The one exception is transactions under the Georgia Credit Card and Credit Card Bank Act, O.C.G.A. § 7-5-1 et seq., which are exempted from the Act under O.”

Synovus Bank v. Griner, 739 S.E.2d 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “tion to dismiss because: (1) the plaintiffs’ state law claims are barred under the doctrine of implied preemption; (2) the fees at issue do not constitute interest under federal law; (3) the fees do not constitute interest under Georgia law; and (4) if the fees are considered…”

Synovus Bank v. Thomas Griner (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 7-5-1, et seq. As explained more fully below, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted by federal law.”

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.