Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Owes How Much? Developments In Apportionment And Joint And Several Liability Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, Thomas A. Eaton
Who Owes How Much? Developments In Apportionment And Joint And Several Liability Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, Thomas A. Eaton
Scholarly Works
For most of its history, Georgia followed the traditional common law rule of joint and several liability and the equally well-settled principle that negligence could not be compared with intent when apportioning liability. Both of those propositions were dramatically altered by the enactment of the 2005 amendments to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) section 51-12-33 as construed by the Georgia Supreme Court in two recent opinions.
Skimming From The 2%: The Status Of Georgia's Restrictions On Shareholder Access To Corporate Information, Ruari J. O'Sullivan
Skimming From The 2%: The Status Of Georgia's Restrictions On Shareholder Access To Corporate Information, Ruari J. O'Sullivan
Georgia Law Review
The Georgia Court of Appeals, in Mannato v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc., held that O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1602 abrogated all
common law rights to inspect corporate records. As a
result, shareholders in Georgia owning less than 2% of a
corporation'soutstandingshares suddenly lost the right to
petition a court to grant access to a corporation's books
and records. This Note argues that the Mannato decision
was incorrect. The Georgia Court of Appeals failed to
notice the significant procedural differences that existed
between the statutory and common law right of inspection
and erroneously applied Georgia's established law of
statutory abrogation. The court also brushed …
The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David E. Shipley
The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David E. Shipley
Georgia Law Review
Like federal and state administrative agencies
throughout the nation, Georgia's many boards,
commissions and authorities make policy when they apply
their governing statutes in promulgating regulations and
in ruling on specific matters like granting or denying an
application for a permit or determining the residency of a
candidate for public office. Sometimes governing statutes
are clear, but sometimes there is ambiguity. When there is
ambiguity in the governing statute, an agency must
interpret that legislation when it promulgates regulations
or decides a particular contested matter. This Article asks
and answers the fundamental question of what deference,
if any, must a …
The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David Shipley
The Chevron Two-Step In Georgia's Administrative Law, David Shipley
Scholarly Works
The Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have long accepted the General Assembly’s authority to enact legislation that establishes administrative agencies and empowers those agencies to promulgate rules and regulations to implement their enabling statutes. In addition, the Georgia Constitution provides that the General Assembly may authorize agencies to exercise quasi-judicial powers. Administrative agencies with broad powers enjoy a secure position under Georgia law.
Like federal and state administrative agencies throughout the nation, Georgia’s many boards, commissions and authorities make policy when they apply their governing statutes in promulgating regulations of general applicability, and in ruling on specific matters …