(Code 1981, §16-17-2, enacted from the Ga. L. 2004, p. sixty, § 3; Ga. L. 2005, p. sixty, § 16/HB 95; Ga. L. 2020, p. 156, § 9/SB 462.)

– Trial courtroom failed to err from inside the rejecting the defendants’ equal shelter and vagueness pressures so you can O.C.Grams.A good. § 16-17-1 et seq., payday loans Lafollette adopting the defendants was indeed charged with violating O.C.G.C.Grams.A. § 16-17-2(a)(3), and therefore was subject to condition controls restricting higher interest rates into the money, while the fresh new away-of-state financial institutions weren’t; the fresh new Georgia legislature got an intellectual reason behind creating a class centered on those in-condition pay day loan providers who have been subject to condition controls, and furthermore the brand new ban facing payday loans inside any type of mode transacted is actually well enough definite to get to know owed processes standards. Glenn v. County, 282 Ga. twenty-seven, 644 S.

– Georgia Ultimate Judge ends up that Pay day Financing Operate, O.C.G.Good. § step 16-step 17-step one, specifically subsection (d), including the statement you to pay check financing doesn’t encompass money one involve highway trade, merely a great legislative looking of fact to which the brand new Judge isn’t sure; to help you exempt money you to definitely encompass freeway commerce regarding the bans from the newest Work do create instance a contradiction and you may absurdity regarding demonstrate that the newest Georgia legislature did not indicate they which will make like a restriction. Continua a leggere