Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ethridge v. Price

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 5, 1989No. A89A1195, A89A1260Published

1ConcurrenceBenham, Judge

I concur in the majority decision that summary judgment was appropriate for all three DOT employees, appellants Ethridge and Tyre and appellee Mims.

I agree with Judge Sognier’s special concurrence that the necessary statutory preconditions for relation back under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) were not met in the case at bar. However, I believe that summary judgment should have been granted to appellants Ethridge and Tyre and appellee Mims on their statute of limitation defense. While Price’s incompetency tolled the statute of limitation (OCGA § 9-3-90), the period of limitation commenced upon the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Atlanta v. BarrettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
  2. Barnum v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  3. Cline v. Lever Brothers CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  4. Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API