Legal Opinion · Concurrence

WRIGHT v. BROWN Et Al.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 2, 2016No. A15A1788Published

1ConcurrenceMcFadden, Judge

I concur fully. I agree that, for the reasons well and thoughtfully explained by the majority, we cannot adopt the Attorney General’s arguments about the intention of the General Assembly regarding the statute before us today. I write separately to emphasize, however, that Georgia courts are bound by statute and precedent to give due consideration to the intention of the General Assembly.

OCGA § 1-3-1 (a) directs:

In all interpretations of statutes, the courts shall look diligently for the intention of the General Assembly, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Towne v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. General Electric Credit Corp. v. BrooksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
  3. Holcim (US), Inc. v. AMDG, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2004
  4. Termnet Merchant Services, Inc. v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003
  5. Carringer v. RodgersSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003

11 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