Legal Opinion

In re T. M. G.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 30, 2002No. S02G0228PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sears, Presiding Justice.

This Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ ruling that appellants are collaterally estopped from seeking to adopt TMG, because appellants “acted and were treated as parties” in appellees’ earlier adoption proceeding.1 This Court, however, has previously held that appellants were not parties to appellees’ adoption proceeding. Moreover, the issue to be decided in appellants’ current action was neither directly nor implicitly decided in the appellees’ previous action. It follows that appellants were not collaterally estopped from pursuing their own…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Waldroup v. Greene County Hospital AuthoritySupreme Court of Georgia · 1995
  2. Sumner v. SumnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  3. Boozer v. HigdonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
  4. Jebco Ventures, Inc. v. City of SmyrnaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1989
  5. Department of Human Resources v. FleemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1994

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Community State Bank v. StrongCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
  2. Meagher v. QuickCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
  3. Williams v. the StatsSupreme Court of Georgia · 2023
  4. Haygood v. HeadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2010
  5. Austin v. CohenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2004

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API